Me and not me. I was expecting Ginsberg. This was actually one of the only reasons I preferred Obama to McCain. Since I've now come to realize they're one in the same, I'm curious how this is all going to turn out.

WASHINGTON, DC—By an 8-1 vote Monday, the members of the U.S. Supreme Court collectively resolved to lose their virginity by Dec. 31, 2002.

"Whereas neither this judicial body, nor the bodies of any of its nine members, has ever been touched in an intimate manner, it is wholly appropriate for us to become men and women via acts of sexual congress, and this on a deadline described by the completion of the year 2002," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, voicing the majority opinion. "The only caveat is: There are no caveats."

The pact was first proposed on Oct. 23, when Kennedy and Justice Antonin Scalia were bullied by a coalition of prominent congressional jocks led by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY).

"The legislators in question were stepping on our robes and coughing the word 'fag' and carrying out a variety of other acts that, while not unconstitutional, would unequivocally be construed as mean," Kennedy said. "The final straw came when Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told me she thought I was cute and said to meet her at the Jefferson Memorial dressed as a cowboy so we could make out."

After complying with Collins' request, Kennedy was ambushed and pelted with eggs by several assailants, including Collins herself, who walked off holding hands with Rep. Tom Osborne (R-NE).

"She laughed and said, 'So long, virgin! Have a nice night with Mr. Right Hand,'" Kennedy said. "After that, I decided I'd had enough. It was time to take action."

The court decided to move forward with the pact later that evening when, during a late-night bonding session, Chief Justice William Rehnquist admitted to being a virgin—shattering longtime perceptions that he is the worldliest and most experienced member of the court.

"Hearing that Big Willie had never buried the gavel was a key turning point," Justice David Souter said. "It opened up our eyes and made us see how we were not alone, after all. After a period of deliberation, we arrived at a majority opinion that if we all worked together, we could overcome our nervousness and actually get laid."

"Hey, everybody!" Souter added. "We're all gonna get laid!"

The lone dissenting vote, cast by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, came as a surprise to many, given her long track record of defending personal liberties. Washington Post judicial reporter James Klingler theorized that the vote may represent an attempt on Ginsburg's part to prevent Scalia from coupling with another woman.

"I'm not at liberty to name names, but a certain Supreme Court justice recently informed me that Ginsburg confided in her that she 'totally loves' Scalia," Klingler said. "This, I believe, is the reason she voted against the pact. But while, on its surface, this pact would seem to drive Ginsburg and Scalia further apart, it may well be the very thing that brings them together. Perhaps during a particularly long and difficult get-laid strategy session, Justice Ginsburg will remove her glasses and rub her tired eyes, prompting Justice Scalia to finally see the beautiful woman beneath that hard liberal exterior."

The first major test case for the pact will take place this weekend at a Judicial Branch/Daughters of the American Revolution mixer, which Justice John Paul Stevens said will be attended by some "really slutty girls" he knows from law school.

"Under penalty of perjury, I swear to God, there is this one chick who is completely hot for Souter," Stevens said. "She personally attested to this fact during a conversation I recently overheard that I am not at liberty to discuss in any detail. Saturday is his night, man."

Subsequent opportunities are expected to arise at a pool party Supreme Court Marshal Pamela Talkin is slated to throw at the Alexandria Radisson over Thanksgiving break, as well as at the Judicial Branch Big Beach Bonfire on Dec. 14.

Stephen "Pee-Wee" Breyer, the most recently sworn-in justice, reported being nervous about the impending virginity loss. A close confidant, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that a trembling Breyer recently asked him, "Gee, getting it on with a real girl—what do I do?"

Not all of the justices admit to being so nervous, however. Asked to assess his prospects for losing his virginity within the next two months, a confident Scalia lifted his judicial robe and quipped, "Res ipsa loquitur."

Hey, kids! Do you ever get tired of Fox News' crops? I don't mean the food they might be literally growing, in Glenn Beck's Doom Room, in preparation for Imminent Socialist Panic. I'm talking about the way they manipulate video to make it look like people are just straight up saying the opposite thing they actually said. Well, it's been bothering the media critics at Media Matters For America for some time, and they have, for a long time, been cataloging "examples of Fox News hosts and correspondents cropping comments by progressives and Democratic political figures in a manner that misrepresents them." A new mash-up video offers some side-by-side examples of what they're talking about:

Some constructive criticism? I think the third example -- Obama's "empathy" criteria for Supreme Court justice -- isn't the best example of a Fox cropping. While it's certainly true that Major Garrett's statement, "That aggravates those who feel that justices should follow the Constitution and legislative intent," seems to neatly ignore the fact that Obama's next statement was "I will seek someone who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our Constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process, and the appropriate limits of the judicial role," the fact is, just about every news organization honed in on the "empathy" part of the statement. It became the sound bite from that press exchange.

In a more lengthy report, however, Media Matters has other candidates that are fitting examples of these games with videotape, well worth reviewing. Key examples include Sean Hannity's intentional omission of Obama's admonishment of Europeans' "casual...insidious" anti-Americanism to make it look like Obama was apologizing for the United States, and Wendell Goler's splice-happy report that made it look like Obama was in favor of "European-style health care," when he was actually specifically opposing it. Also close to my heart is Fox's misleading insertion of an out-of-context Joe Biden clip into a report, for which the network eventually had to apologize. At the time, I opined:

It's very sad, and weird, because Fox News would have made their point just fine if they hadn't included the misleading part of this clip. All they've really done is demonstrate that they do not have enough faith in their own editorial premises to avoid bolstering them with falsehoods. But more to the point, whoever is responsible for putting this video together needs to accept a new prevailing reality, that stupid little lies like this will be debunked and exposed very quickly, so they may as well just cut out this nonsense entirely.

But more to the point, whoever is responsible for putting this video together needs to accept a new prevailing reality, that stupid little lies like this will be debunked and exposed very quickly, so they may as well just cut out this nonsense entirely.

They'll be debunked by organizations who aren't Fox News. The people who actually watch Fox thinking it's news, as opposed to it's comedic value, will never see the debunking; nor would they want to or believe it if they did. 'Merika seems to be made up entirely of two classes: those who think Fox is the only trusted news source and those who know better and they seem to be split about 50/50. The latter group can see both sides. The first group will never accept anything outside of Fox's point of view.

No it wouldn't. But seriously, if the government was doing this it would be called propaganda and we would all be rightfully decrying it. And another great example of where people think free press means the press can print whatever it wants. I have freedom of speech but I can't yell fire in a public place if there is no fire, and I cant' defame someone in an act of libel. I can't incite violence or a riot in the press. I can't give out false advertisements. Whats similiar in all these cases? Lying and hiding it as the truth to a public audience. I would say this fits very closely with the spirit of those other laws.

And no the government wouldn't. Fortunately, when you edit and crop like Fox News is doing to serve your agenda, it's quite obvious - and, as the free-markets should point out, Media Matters is already doing this. I guess I should be clear, I don't want some governmental agency patrolling for this, but when you have a company which repeatadly distorts reality like Fox News does something should be done. Especially in the Supreme Court case. The guy literally objected to Obama with something Obama actually said right after the clip they showed ended. I mean what the fuck.

And yes, any news organization which does this repeatedly should face penalties.

I'm all for that. Frankly, I think mass media is about the worst thing to happen in this country. Mass media is just an easy way for demagogues to have power. Is there any studies which show the negative effects of 24 hour news channels? Because I can't imagine there's much benefit, it forces the news to become about ratings and not about the news.

Maybe we could have a law against one company having monopolistic broudcasting rights on a station? So for example, on Fox News channel, instead of everything being broud casted by the same company, we require a different company to come in. Say, MSNBC. And have the reverse true on the MSNBC channel. This way people don't get one viewpoint and spout it as the truth. A la the idea behind equal show time for political candidates and such.

That's a nice idea and all, but you're forgetting the mass media is most peoples education. Plus, it wouldn't stop people from seeing what they want to see, I don't even know how you can say this. You can turn off the TV, and they wouldn't be forcing you to watch anything.

In this case the ends is more important than the means. I'm much more frightened of a "free" public who is effectively brainwashed by mass media who's only concern is for profit and ratings than big brother dictating BALANCED news coverage. Besides which, your plan requires big brother, and some could argue much more severely. Who's to educate the people to try and get a balanced viewpoint? You said it youreslf, we must EDUCATE people, not convince people to educate themselves.

I think I'll actually agree to that. V-chips can control what kids are allowed to watch, and if the parent doesn't use them then they're an idiot. Plus, kids are getting far far far far more damaged from access to the internet than they are from TV. Curse words never hurt anybody, it's just purism taken to an extreme and it's not as if kids don't know what is being said.

Still, big brother or not I don't trust the masses to get a balance source of news, and I'd rather have big government and big brother dicating this then face the consequences of a dumb public. Democracy in the hands of idiots is simply terrifying.

I think I'll actually agree to that. V-chips can control what kids are allowed to watch, and if the parent doesn't use them then they're an idiot. Plus, kids are getting far far far far more damaged from access to the internet than they are from TV. Curse words never hurt anybody, it's just purism taken to an extreme and it's not as if kids don't know what is being said.

Still, big brother or not I don't trust the masses to get a balance source of news, and I'd rather have big government and big brother dicating this then face the consequences of a dumb public. Democracy in the hands of idiots is simply terrifying.

That's an argument against democracies, not an argument in favor of big government. That's why we were never supposed to have a democracy in this country. Rule of law, the constitution, is supposed to be the final judge.

The FCC does a lot more than police f-bombs and flashes of flesh, but on that topic it's the parent's responsibility to make sure their kids aren't seeing that stuff if they don't want them too.

I'm talking about everything the FCC does. I'd have to dig it up but there's been a series of rule changes that have favored the conglomeration of media.

I never said I liked democracies, I more or less fear the demos. But I don't see a better alternative; Republanism suffers from the inability to accurately and adaquately define who should rule. No matter how you try and define it, it'll be misused and abused. <insert the famous quotes about democracy being the best we have>.

And I believe I've mentioned it before: I fear the masses more than I fear the government. My argument aren't going to be "in favor" of big government, just against the alternatives. If we talked about less economic issues on this board, you and I would agree far more.

I never said I liked democracies, I more or less fear the demos. But I don't see a better alternative; Republanism suffers from the inability to accurately and adaquately define who should rule. No matter how you try and define it, it'll be misused and abused. <insert the famous quotes about democracy being the best we have>.

And I believe I've mentioned it before: I fear the masses more than I fear the government. My argument aren't going to be "in favor" of big government, just against the alternatives. If we talked about less economic issues on this board, you and I would agree far more.

As with everything, from this we can say that moderation is best. Give some rule to the people, and some to the government. Not that I think the Republicans or the Democrats are right; just find the happy median is all.

Obama's handling of the economy is a complete failure. I don't know why I'm only just realizing this.

The economy is in shambles right now because Wall Street invested so carelessly and put so much money into non-value creating ventures that the system collapsed under the massive debt it incurred.

So basically, you have a group of financial elites who have proven themselves to be incompetent money managers. You have debt bogging this country down. You have a non-value oriented perspective on making money.

What does Obama do?

He runs up trillions of dollars in debt. He leaves the incompetents who caused this problem in charge of our financial institutions. He's trying to keep the old way of investing money alive, even though it's been proven to not work.

And the stock numbers on Wall Street go up, even though the actual productive ability of the economy is in the shitter.

I don't know if Obama either can't see the consequences of his actions, or if he can but ignores them. It's irrelevant. What matters is that the very nature of the economy is about to radically and fundamentally shift, and Obama's policies are making that coming shift as violent as possible. The American auto companies have become bloated corporate giants, with the UAW rivaling their decadence. If the companies were just allowed to fail, we could remove their toxic business practices from this nation and rebuild a modern and efficient American auto industry more in line with the rest of the world.

But we're not, we're essentially nationalizing the auto-industry like the Soviets did. We can debate the philosophy of this all we want, but the Soviet Union collapsed because it was an untenable system. We absolutely cannot just throw money at the auto industry and produce shitty cars that can never turn a profit for the auto industry, but Obama's acting like that's just fine. Rather than letting the auto companies die gracefully and move on, he's making their eventual collapse cost billions more than it should.

Or take green energy as an example. Obama can talk about the tax breaks and green building bullshit in his stimulus package all he wants, but it won't do anything to meaningfully impact how much green energy this country uses. China's paying electric companies to install solar panels. The CHINESE are more forward thinking on this than we are. They're revolutionizing how they get their electricity, and we're stuck with tax credits for green windows that won't do a fucking thing for energy consumption.

I'm not even an expert on this shit, but it just seems too obvious. You don't solve a problem by continuing the conditions that caused the problem, and that's exactly what Obama's doing. I'm hoping at some point people realize this.

As for the Chinese and their auto-industry... well, the Chinese government doesn't respect patents (which I agree completely) that's why they can advance that fast in their electric revolution. The car industry hasn't advance too much in the Western civilization because of all that BS that big car companies sue your ass off if you develop an idea that they came up with before and don't want to share it, nor even use it on their cars. So that's why we're practically "stuck" in that issue.

Sounds like you're strongly in favor of more and stronger regulations. That's truly the only way to fix what's wrong in the long term.

Eh...

More regulation isn't an answer. Regulation just gives power to the government, which has proven to be incompetent, and arguably in collusion with Wall Street. Just giving them more power isn't some kind of magic pill. Also, you have to take into account how regulations can be worked around.

On the other hand, just deregulating doesn't seem to be an answer. Part of the reason we're in this mess is because deregulation allowed investors to take risks they weren't able to fully comprehend the consequences of. But then the problem becomes, what do you regulate?

The one regulation I think really might be necessary is limiting the size of these companies, so they can't get so big that it's impossible for them to fail or else the economy crumbles under them. Like I've said before, it's essential that companies be able to fail or else the free market system utterly does not work. An investment company going under should hurt the economy, don't get me wrong. It should serve as a stark lesson in what not to do in the future. But there's a difference between hurting the economy and destroying it. Right now, we're in a position where letting investors go under would actually destroy the economy. And regulation to prevent that kind of growth might be necessary. I hope not, but I don't see an alternative at the moment.

The economy is in shambles right now because Wall Street invested so carelessly and put so much money into non-value creating ventures that the system collapsed under the massive debt it incurred.

You're going to have to explain this then, becuase this was caused by a Deregulation of the economy. It's history, you can trace this and the effects it had. You agree with this, and say deregulation got us into the mess, but then don't feel that reregulating is the answer? Where's the logic in this?

The economy is in shambles right now because Wall Street invested so carelessly and put so much money into non-value creating ventures that the system collapsed under the massive debt it incurred.

You're going to have to explain this then, becuase this was caused by a Deregulation of the economy. It's history, you can trace this and the effects it had. You agree with this, and say deregulation got us into the mess, but then don't feel that reregulating is the answer? Where's the logic in this?

Because the debate over regulation is a distraction from the debate over how to make Wall-Street create value again, something neither Wall Street or the government wants to talk about because it's a distraction from robbing and deceiving people.

I'm sure that in some cases, re-regulation would be the answer. And in some cases, more deregulation would be the answer. But the problems that make Wall-Street what it is go back before deregulation. The movie Wall Street was made in the 80's, this shit isn't new.

Don't you need to tackle each issue on it's own? Problems we have now can be traced to deregulation, so fixing those problems is logically reregulating. No one has ever said this will cure everything within the economy, but it sure as hell is a start.

Anyone else watching AC360 right now? Look at the brutality of the police on an unarmed and unconcious suspect!!Video here http://videos.al.com/birmingham-news/2009/05/birmingham_police_beating_vide.html

Jobe, no Federal Reserve = no central bank, right?So with the absence of a central bank, many banks appear and they create their own currency based on the amount of gold or metal they have on their vaults? Is there a good book that explains how the market in a country works with the absence of a central bank?

Jobe, no Federal Reserve = no central bank, right?So with the absence of a central bank, many banks appear and they create their own currency based on the amount of gold or metal they have on their vaults? Is there a good book that explains how the market in a country works with the absence of a central bank?

I kinda made a topic on this. To answer though, yes. A good book? There's a good website with hundreds of books, yet you know what the address is already.

I might support a law requiring 100% reserves, since for a bank to offer loans drawn from demand deposits is defrauding the depositors. All checking account type moneys cannot be lent out, though time deposits are just fine.

Bank's are the only business where not only is fraud legal, but mandated by the government. Grain silo's get in trouble if they start producing duplicate notes for the same deposit, why do banks enjoy special privileges?

Is that 100% free market? No, though it's well within the purpose and intent of the constitutional responsibilities of the government. Take away the government and I won't ask for a 100% reserve law.

Jobe, no Federal Reserve = no central bank, right?So with the absence of a central bank, many banks appear and they create their own currency based on the amount of gold or metal they have on their vaults? Is there a good book that explains how the market in a country works with the absence of a central bank?

I kinda made a topic on this. To answer though, yes. A good book? There's a good website with hundreds of books, yet you know what the address is already.

I might support a law requiring 100% reserves, since for a bank to offer loans drawn from demand deposits is defrauding the depositors. All checking account type moneys cannot be lent out, though time deposits are just fine.

Bank's are the only business where not only is fraud legal, but mandated by the government. Grain silo's get in trouble if they start producing duplicate notes for the same deposit, why do banks enjoy special privileges?

Is that 100% free market? No, though it's well within the purpose and intent of the constitutional responsibilities of the government. Take away the government and I won't ask for a 100% reserve law.

Where? Remember this site crashed and everything was lost!

I could look at mises.org... sure.... apparently the topic is more complicated than it seems...

Eliminate legal tender laws and any taxes on the transfer of gold and silver.

That's all you need to do, Gresham's law will take care of the rest. I don't trust the government not to debase the currency.... I'm beginning to doubt a gold standard where the standard is maintained by the government. There's nothing special about money that benefits from lack of competition.

Reducing the federal budget and eliminating the income tax would help also, but aren't necessary.

So no transition? How am I going to get money then? My employers won't be able to get it - they're money is going to be just as useless as mine. Sure, there will be a market still for our money, as necessity will force people into it. But have you studied the American Revolution? With a gold standard, especially as you desire it, it will be extremely hard for me to get gold. Why? Because the people who HAVE gold won't have much reason to give it to me. Eventually, this could easily stabilize according to curve you're describing (though I just heard of it), but I don't see it as a perfect guarantee. Additionally, how long would this take? I think the overall consequences would be quite drastic, and need to be considered.

So no transition? How am I going to get money then? My employers won't be able to get it - they're money is going to be just as useless as mine. Sure, there will be a market still for our money, as necessity will force people into it. But have you studied the American Revolution? With a gold standard, especially as you desire it, it will be extremely hard for me to get gold. Why? Because the people who HAVE gold won't have much reason to give it to me. Eventually, this could easily stabilize according to curve you're describing (though I just heard of it), but I don't see it as a perfect guarantee. Additionally, how long would this take? I think the overall consequences would be quite drastic, and need to be considered.

People would issue, banks or other companies, gold or silver backed currencies. Several do already. If anyone did not redeem their certificates for the gold or silver they promised, their value would drop, and dishonest companies would go out of business.

Why is it so hard for you to get gold? You can buy it today. You could under the system I'm describing, eventually request to be paid in gold backed notes. USD wouldn't depreciate to zero overnight.

What curve, Gresham's law? ???

How long would it take? Years, maybe decades, maybe months. Depends on how much the government debases the little value left in dollars. It's not the point though. It's about restoring people's freedom to choose what they use for money.

You're forgetting something rather big: I can buy gold right now because of legal tender laws.

*Edit*

And I still gather that Gresham's Law would provide a smooth transition between the two currencies? I don't care to figure out what variables to use, but over time this would mean a general curve if modeled correctly.

You're forgetting something rather big: I can buy gold right now because of legal tender laws.

*Edit*

And I still gather that Gresham's Law would provide a smooth transition between the two currencies? I don't care to figure out what variables to use, but over time this would mean a general curve if modeled correctly.

If the value of the USD dropped to zero overnight, you might have a point. The removal of legal tender laws isn't going to make that happen. Basically, we need to allow what's known as Gold Contracts, which legal tender laws make impossible. You do something for me, and at some future time I must pay you X amount of gold, or sheep, or whatever. What a legal tender law says that all things have a dollar value, and if a party can't settle a debt make in XYZ, he can give the equivalent dollar amount.

The dollar has value, as does every fiat currency, because people know others will take it. You'd surely be able to buy gold with it. Also, what are all these gold holders going to do with it all? Sit on it? They need to eat too. Gold holders would spend it, putting it into circulation. Even if they're making more gold, there's still exchange going on.

Maybe the fed could actively destroy the monetary base of dollars to maintain their value during the transition. Either way, it's not an argument against allowing people to use other things for money.

Did you know there are several alternative currencies in America now? Interestedly enough, several are labor-theory-of-value marxist based ones, like Ithaca Hours. http://www.ithacahours.com/intro.html

I don't doubt that gold would eventually get out, I just doubt the ease of which this transition would occur. Without legal tender laws, if I have gold, and you have paper money, why on earth would I trade you for the paper money? Again, I point to the 1760-1790's as historical reference. There woudl be some trading done, but most people would be harmed by such a transition.

I don't doubt that gold would eventually get out, I just doubt the ease of which this transition would occur. Without legal tender laws, if I have gold, and you have paper money, why on earth would I trade you for the paper money? Again, I point to the 1760-1790's as historical reference. There woudl be some trading done, but most people would be harmed by such a transition.

What are you going to do with your gold, eat it? If you're not spending your hoarded gold, that means you're spending something else, i.e. dollars, and if I gave you more dollars than you think that coin is worth, you'd be a fool not to take them. I've had to sell gold for worthless fiat dollars before, and you know how much I love gold. Besides, it's not even about that, it's about allowing people to use what they think best for money.

I don't doubt that gold would eventually get out, I just doubt the ease of which this transition would occur. Without legal tender laws, if I have gold, and you have paper money, why on earth would I trade you for the paper money? Again, I point to the 1760-1790's as historical reference. There woudl be some trading done, but most people would be harmed by such a transition.

What are you going to do with your gold, eat it? If you're not spending your hoarded gold, that means you're spending something else, i.e. dollars, and if I gave you more dollars than you think that coin is worth, you'd be a fool not to take them. I've had to sell gold for worthless fiat dollars before, and you know how much I love gold. Besides, it's not even about that, it's about allowing people to use what they think best for money.

Seriously, I'm not doubting that such transactions would occur and that it coudl eventually even out. I'm doubting the efficiency of such a measure and I'm looking at historical events which back this up. You had British Merchants in America who woudl refuse to accept paper-money becuase they felt it was useless. This fomented economic stagnation NUMEROUS times as people couldn't pay off their debts and they couldn't get gold becuase they didn't have the resources to acquire it.

Reap, your forgetting a little thing in your analysis of the economy called

The Federal Reserve!

Hot damn, when will people realize that the excesses of wall street debt were made possible by the vast money creation of the fed? No fed = no bubbleAlso,

No implicit government bailouts plus no GSE's = no "too big to fail" bullshit, although it's even false now.

Utterly wrong. No Federal Reserve doesn't change the fact that people on Wall Street are more about satisfying their own greed than creating value.

But they do that because the Federal Reserve keeps pumping money into the market. Bush said: "Wall Street is drunk". Yeah, because the Federal Reserve poured the alcohol. No back up money, not so constant stupid and greedy risks.

Reap, your forgetting a little thing in your analysis of the economy called

The Federal Reserve!

Hot damn, when will people realize that the excesses of wall street debt were made possible by the vast money creation of the fed? No fed = no bubbleAlso,

No implicit government bailouts plus no GSE's = no "too big to fail" bullshit, although it's even false now.

Utterly wrong. No Federal Reserve doesn't change the fact that people on Wall Street are more about satisfying their own greed than creating value.

But they do that because the Federal Reserve keeps pumping money into the market. Bush said: "Wall Street is drunk". Yeah, because the Federal Reserve poured the alcohol. No back up money, not so constant stupid and greedy risks.

That's why it worked rather well until the same banks lobbied and got the regulations taken away....

Reap, your forgetting a little thing in your analysis of the economy called

The Federal Reserve!

Hot damn, when will people realize that the excesses of wall street debt were made possible by the vast money creation of the fed? No fed = no bubbleAlso,

No implicit government bailouts plus no GSE's = no "too big to fail" bullshit, although it's even false now.

Utterly wrong. No Federal Reserve doesn't change the fact that people on Wall Street are more about satisfying their own greed than creating value.

But they do that because the Federal Reserve keeps pumping money into the market. Bush said: "Wall Street is drunk". Yeah, because the Federal Reserve poured the alcohol. No back up money, not so constant stupid and greedy risks.

That's why it worked rather well until the same banks lobbied.

You should have stopped right there. Banks can lobby because apparently is legal over there. BIG MISTAKE. And they can also get away with it because Government is too big; their demands have to pass some how with big manoeuvres.

New Preamble for the Constitutionby brenna on March 08, 2007NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION! The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...

"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes. (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Lastly....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States speak out because if you do not, who will

Thomas E. Woods, author of the NYTimes best seller book, Meltdown, wrote recently on his website the following:

How to Return to Gold

Plenty of sensible people recognize there’s something wrong with our money, and favor a return to a commodity money as existed under the gold standard. But how do we get from here to there? Here are the answers of Henry Hazlitt (these are direct links) (http://mises.org/books/inflation.pdf) (.pdf; scroll down to pp. 58-61); Murray Rothbard, (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard200.html) and George Reisman (http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2007/61-Reisman.mp3) (mp3).

One of the difficulties with the classical gold standard is that it relied on decent, honorable, and intelligent politicians who wouldn’t just abandon the system when it suited them. Nobel Prize winner F.A. Hayek didn’t trust them. Here are his remarks on the complete separation of money and state. (http://mises.org/story/3204)

Ron Paul has arguably the simplest solution, which he outlines in The Revolution: A Manifesto, (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446537519?ie=UTF8&tag=thomacom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0446537519) his #1 New York Times bestseller: abolish legal tender laws (which are a monopolistic intrusion into the free market), do away with all taxation on gold and silver, and simply allow people — this is a free country, right? — to choose what suits them best as a medium of exchange. In no time society would, I am certain, converge once again on precious metals, what Professor Jörg Guido Hülsmann calls “natural money.”

New forum theme has been installed that lets you choose between a few different color schemes. I'm using the grey scheme that looks a lot like DTF light, but there are other options. Overall, this theme has a lot of really cool options that I like. Try it out if you haven't.

What if we simly went back to backing the money we do have with gold, and other commodities? Not just gold, but a variety of them (like China is doing and like China proposed).

What other commodities.

And I don't care for the CollegeHumor, I did find it funny.

Beyond the valuables people have (say, silver/diamonds) but also essentials for our economy; copper (electrical wiring), silicon (computers), etc.

As for silver/diamonds, I wouldn't object. Silver was also sound money before '71. Copper and silicon, this may work for now, just like oil does, but I know that in the future we won't need any of those. Copper... wifi energy will replace the need of it. Silicon... same as copper, will be replaced in a sec once they figure out a way to attach chips without glue.

What if we simly went back to backing the money we do have with gold, and other commodities? Not just gold, but a variety of them (like China is doing and like China proposed).

What other commodities.

And I don't care for the CollegeHumor, I did find it funny.

Beyond the valuables people have (say, silver/diamonds) but also essentials for our economy; copper (electrical wiring), silicon (computers), etc.

As for silver/diamonds, I wouldn't object. Silver was also sound money before '71. Copper and silicon, this may work for now, just like oil does, but I know that in the future we won't need any of those. Copper... wifi energy will replace the need of it. Silicon... same as copper, will be replaced in a sec once they figure out a way to attach chips without glue.

Metallurgy and microchip fabrication are not your fields. Diamonds aren't fungible or divisible without a major loss in value, they would make a very back backing for a currency. Silver, gold copper, etc, are good, silver being the best. Chips are made of silicon, not attached with silicon glue. :facepalm:

Reap, your forgetting a little thing in your analysis of the economy called

The Federal Reserve!

Hot damn, when will people realize that the excesses of wall street debt were made possible by the vast money creation of the fed? No fed = no bubbleAlso,

No implicit government bailouts plus no GSE's = no "too big to fail" bullshit, although it's even false now.

Utterly wrong. No Federal Reserve doesn't change the fact that people on Wall Street are more about satisfying their own greed than creating value.

Greed alone is not the problem. The federal reserve provided the rope upon which Wall Street hung themselves.

Greed is a problem, however any disaster would be limited in nature. The Fed makes the problem of greed and excess systemic. With increases in the money supply, any relative increase in one area of the economy diverts resources away from others now only in the current time but also future, and rightfully so. A bubble is limited in size and scope. Inflation induces the massive bubbles and swings.

Like I've said, a greedy gambler can only lose his own money in a casino. The fed is like the gamblers buddy that provides him with more money every time he loses, but allows him to keep all the profits from winning, and to boot, the money he gives the gambler is the American people's money.

Greed is not even a necessary or sufficient condition. Fed induced bubbles can happen without anyone being greedy, they distort information.

What if we simly went back to backing the money we do have with gold, and other commodities? Not just gold, but a variety of them (like China is doing and like China proposed).

What other commodities.

And I don't care for the CollegeHumor, I did find it funny.

Beyond the valuables people have (say, silver/diamonds) but also essentials for our economy; copper (electrical wiring), silicon (computers), etc.

As for silver/diamonds, I wouldn't object. Silver was also sound money before '71. Copper and silicon, this may work for now, just like oil does, but I know that in the future we won't need any of those. Copper... wifi energy will replace the need of it. Silicon... same as copper, will be replaced in a sec once they figure out a way to attach chips without glue.

Metallurgy and microchip fabrication are not your fields. Diamonds aren't fungible or divisible without a major loss in value, they would make a very back backing for a currency. Silver, gold copper, etc, are good, silver being the best. Chips are made of silicon, not attached with silicon glue. :facepalm:

And this emindead making look like an ass.:neverusethis:Anyway, sure, the diamonds are not easily divisible but that won't let people know "it's relative value" against other things?

It doesn't take being the backing of a currency to know somethings value....

Any diamond can be denominated in X grams of gold, but a gold bar cannot be denominated in X diamonds. You need to know what specific diamonds, where they are from, how clear they are, what's the cut, etc etc etc.

Technically, anything WiFi transmits energy; just it's on a very small scale, and some people have high hopes for it becoming large scale. Every time you use a radio, you're receiving transmitted energy (all waves move energy about).

Technically, anything WiFi transmits energy; just it's on a very small scale, and some people have high hopes for it becoming large scale. Every time you use a radio, you're receiving transmitted energy (all waves move energy about).

Well yeah but there's a massive difference between sending signals wirelessly and transporting energy. Just ask this guy:

Technically, anything WiFi transmits energy; just it's on a very small scale, and some people have high hopes for it becoming large scale. Every time you use a radio, you're receiving transmitted energy (all waves move energy about).

Well yeah but there's a massive difference between sending signals wirelessly and transporting energy. Just ask this guy:

(http://gcoinc.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/tesla.jpg)

Yes, but if I recall correctly, Tesla also thought it was feasible - even near the end of his life. And on some level, sending signals wirelessly IS transporting energy... just a much smaller amount. Difference of degree, not of type.

EDIT: And besides, maybe turning the surface of the planet into a giant microwave oven is a bad thing... there's already research pointed towards harmful effects of always being in the presence of these fields in the strengths they are now.

Mankind has every right to do whatever they please up to the point where the infringe upon others rights. This is a very clear line, and religionlessly provides a very clear framework from which you can definitively say murder and theft are wrong and properly punishable by the state, homosexuality and every other victimless "crimes" such as drug abuse, are in no way to be criminalized by the state. Non-aggression principle.

Why don't you extend this to corporations and businesses? Or is the problem that you don't see how and where companies infringe upon the rights of others?

Mankind has every right to do whatever they please up to the point where the infringe upon others rights. This is a very clear line, and religionlessly provides a very clear framework from which you can definitively say murder and theft are wrong and properly punishable by the state, homosexuality and every other victimless "crimes" such as drug abuse, are in no way to be criminalized by the state. Non-aggression principle.

Why don't you extend this to corporations and businesses? Or is the problem that you don't see how and where companies infringe upon the rights of others?

Companies infringe on other people's rights all the time... when their pollution harms other people's property... (the EPA doesn't allow landowners to fight back) This is wrong, and these companies should be sued to stop and even criminal penalties brought against the transgresses if they are truly violating people's rights. What those rights are we probably disagree on. So I appreciate the question, and answer it that I do extend this to corporations and businesses.

Well why do you oppose regulation so much? I view it on equal grounds as making murder illegal. The utmost expression of freedom - in any field - is or can be undesirable due to the consequences.

It's the extremes again.

When allowed to, key word, allowed, markets truly do "self regulate." Dishonest companies can only "cook the books" for so long, in a free market eventually all ponzi schemes must come to an end. So many of the governments interventions, for example, the Federal Reserve, disrupt this natural process. The Federal Reserve was hailed as the solution to "break the wall-street banking trust," when in fact the legislation was covertly authored by representatives of the big banks. (if this sounds like a conspiracy, it is. It is a conspiracy backed up by a plethora of sources and cross-references, including the representative's autobiographies) Why would people like J.P. Morgan desire such "regulation?" Because it is a government enforced cartel that protects banks from bank runs and by providing them with non-market powers, and allows banks to make monopolistic profits and prevent competition.

Other forms of regulations are actively lobbied for by huge companies that know they can afford to comply with them, but small start ups cannot, like sarbanes-oxley. The cost of complying prevents many companies from expanding, a.k.a. prevent competition.

It's not the government's job to make sure we are making good investments or whatever. The SEC has shown to be virtually criminally incompetent anyway.

Most government intrusion into the market either crowd out a potential private alternative that would be much more efficient, create unavoidable moral hazard, and rely of non-market powers that are often used to benefit one party at the expense of another.

Additionally, I am in favor of prosecuting corporate criminals. When companies infringe on others rights, they should be held accountable. That's on par with prosecuting murder, not setting emission standards for cars.

I don't advocate the "rule of nature." You have the right to do whatsoever you please until you infringe on someone else's rights. No one has the "freedom" to initiate force against others. It's called the non-aggression principle. If tobacco companies were taking people off the street and putting them in smoke-filled rooms, they'd be cause for government intervention.

I can make the same arguments about murder. Society will also "self-regulate" against murder; anyone who goes around killing people will eventually find himself dead, with or without laws. Or theft, or any other such crime that even you believe a government has the authority and propriety to punish.

The difference is murders are infringing on people's rights, while many things corporations do that you believe call for regulation do not. (Unless they do, of course, in which case government intervention is it's job.)

I want to refine what I said a bit ago about economic laws having the same force as laws of nature.

Government laws exist so long as there is government to enforce them. Economic laws exist before and outside of government, ever more so than my concept of rights, for while you can dispute the existence or origin of rights and deny they exist, economic laws exist in a total, (i.e. market,) anarchy, and within government rule. Man is powerless to change or overcome economic laws through political maneuvering, rules or regulations.

The difference is murders are infringing on people's rights, while many things corporations do that you believe call for regulation do not. (Unless they do, of course, in which case government intervention is it's job.)

I would say that most of the time it's done "invisibly," and to the extent that you don't know always know its happening. Like if a company across the state is pouring chemicals into the water, or spewing chemicals into the air.

The difference is murders are infringing on people's rights, while many things corporations do that you believe call for regulation do not. (Unless they do, of course, in which case government intervention is it's job.)

I would say that most of the time it's done "invisibly," and to the extent that you don't know always know its happening. Like if a company across the state is pouring chemicals into the water, or spewing chemicals into the air.

Those companies should be sued by the affected property owners and damages awarded and paid. If the damages result in bankruptcy, so be it.

The difference is murders are infringing on people's rights, while many things corporations do that you believe call for regulation do not. (Unless they do, of course, in which case government intervention is it's job.)

I would say that most of the time it's done "invisibly," and to the extent that you don't know always know its happening. Like if a company across the state is pouring chemicals into the water, or spewing chemicals into the air.

Those companies should be sued by the affected property owners and damages awarded and paid. If the damages result in bankruptcy, so be it.

How do you measure who is the affected property owner? Especially when it's spewed into the air, how do you determine that? Or in the water, how do you determine who exactly is the affected property owner, or person? And what about potentially not knowing for years, if it was in your body? How about CO2, when the affected persons can be considered everyone on the planet? Or any other such chemical?

I would also point out that your solution required governmental intervention to settle the case and carry out it's decision. Why is the company necessarily going to follow such orders, especially in the decentralized, quasi-anarchism you dream of? In any case, you will still end up with things companies can do with are illegal when taken to court, which amounts to the exact same thing as regulation.

The difference is murders are infringing on people's rights, while many things corporations do that you believe call for regulation do not. (Unless they do, of course, in which case government intervention is it's job.)

I would say that most of the time it's done "invisibly," and to the extent that you don't know always know its happening. Like if a company across the state is pouring chemicals into the water, or spewing chemicals into the air.

Those companies should be sued by the affected property owners and damages awarded and paid. If the damages result in bankruptcy, so be it.

How do you measure who is the affected property owner? Especially when it's spewed into the air, how do you determine that? Or in the water, how do you determine who exactly is the affected property owner, or person? And what about potentially not knowing for years, if it was in your body? How about CO2, when the affected persons can be considered everyone on the planet? Or any other such chemical?

I would also point out that your solution required governmental intervention to settle the case and carry out it's decision. Why is the company necessarily going to follow such orders, especially in the decentralized, quasi-anarchism you dream of? In any case, you will still end up with things companies can do with are illegal when taken to court, which amounts to the exact same thing as regulation.

What? The solution is that if you own a land, you own both the soil and the air above it (or so it must be). If toxic gases come into your property it's dead easy today to find out what company is emanating them. You could allege of the future problems this may have to those who live in your property and the devastating consequences. I don't think everybody will sue if cows farts CO2 come into your property. But to other industrial chemicals, today is really easy to determine which one did it.

In today's system, sure, you have to go to court which is supervised by the government. However, from a Libertarian position, courts will no longer be object of the State. There will be private trials. It's the privatization of that system. The purpose of the justice system will change from today's enforcement of the government laws to the Free-Market Justice of restoring individuals' damaged rights.

You missed the point of my post. It isn't so simle as "are these chemicals on my land," becuase you may not notice the side ffects from it for years, or it may be extremely easy to miss for years. Also, you bypassed the issue of water. If a company is pouring chemicals into the water, that affects pretty much everyone in the globe. If I live in New Orleans and there's a company way up in Montana dumping chemicals in the Missouri river, which I then drink and get affected by, do you imagine it's going to be easy for me to konw this? Or even possible for me to know this? We know this from DDT - it doesn't just stay in one area, it spreads around the globe. You can't view the world as a series of isolated ecosystems, they're all connected in major ways and what you do in one ecosystem invariably moves to other ecosystems. You make it sound as if the problems caused by pollution is isolated and isn't devstating long-term. How does someone forty years from now sue a company that may be out of business now because of the damage done to his property or his person? CO2 emissions aren't isolated either, they mess with the balance way up in the atmosphere - are you going to tell me the average farmer is going to be aware of that co2? How?

Sorry, but private trials would be a farce. A complete farce. You can't just make a court decision and expect it to be carried through, you need power behind that decision for people to actually follow through with it. There needs to be authority where there is to be justice.

You missed the point of my post. It isn't so simle as "are these chemicals on my land," becuase you may not notice the side ffects from it for years, or it may be extremely easy to miss for years. Also, you bypassed the issue of water. If a company is pouring chemicals into the water, that affects pretty much everyone in the globe. If I live in New Orleans and there's a company way up in Montana dumping chemicals in the Missouri river, which I then drink and get affected by, do you imagine it's going to be easy for me to konw this? Or even possible for me to know this? We know this from DDT - it doesn't just stay in one area, it spreads around the globe. You can't view the world as a series of isolated ecosystems, they're all connected in major ways and what you do in one ecosystem invariably moves to other ecosystems. You make it sound as if the problems caused by pollution is isolated and isn't devstating long-term. How does someone forty years from now sue a company that may be out of business now because of the damage done to his property or his person? CO2 emissions aren't isolated either, they mess with the balance way up in the atmosphere - are you going to tell me the average farmer is going to be aware of that co2? How?

Sorry, but private trials would be a farce. A complete farce. You can't just make a court decision and expect it to be carried through, you need power behind that decision for people to actually follow through with it. There needs to be authority where there is to be justice.

You should look into the privatization of rivers and streams. Started in Rumborak's turf, actually. The Ruhrverband

You missed the point of my post. It isn't so simle as "are these chemicals on my land," becuase you may not notice the side ffects from it for years, or it may be extremely easy to miss for years. Also, you bypassed the issue of water. If a company is pouring chemicals into the water, that affects pretty much everyone in the globe. If I live in New Orleans and there's a company way up in Montana dumping chemicals in the Missouri river, which I then drink and get affected by, do you imagine it's going to be easy for me to konw this? Or even possible for me to know this? We know this from DDT - it doesn't just stay in one area, it spreads around the globe. You can't view the world as a series of isolated ecosystems, they're all connected in major ways and what you do in one ecosystem invariably moves to other ecosystems. You make it sound as if the problems caused by pollution is isolated and isn't devstating long-term. How does someone forty years from now sue a company that may be out of business now because of the damage done to his property or his person? CO2 emissions aren't isolated either, they mess with the balance way up in the atmosphere - are you going to tell me the average farmer is going to be aware of that co2? How?

Sorry, but private trials would be a farce. A complete farce. You can't just make a court decision and expect it to be carried through, you need power behind that decision for people to actually follow through with it. There needs to be authority where there is to be justice.

You should look into the privatization of rivers and streams. Started in Rumborak's turf, actually. The Ruhrverband

We would have to privatize the ecosystem for your idea to plausibly work. How do you privatize the oceans? Which, I would say, is pragmatically done with the government. Major parts of the ecosystem shouldn't and can't be "owned" by any one person; reality isn't so isolated. If we adopted the measures you suggest, there might be more done in some area's, but it also leaves gigantic holes under the name of a solution.

You missed the point of my post. It isn't so simle as "are these chemicals on my land," becuase you may not notice the side ffects from it for years, or it may be extremely easy to miss for years. Also, you bypassed the issue of water. If a company is pouring chemicals into the water, that affects pretty much everyone in the globe. If I live in New Orleans and there's a company way up in Montana dumping chemicals in the Missouri river, which I then drink and get affected by, do you imagine it's going to be easy for me to konw this? Or even possible for me to know this? We know this from DDT - it doesn't just stay in one area, it spreads around the globe. You can't view the world as a series of isolated ecosystems, they're all connected in major ways and what you do in one ecosystem invariably moves to other ecosystems. You make it sound as if the problems caused by pollution is isolated and isn't devstating long-term. How does someone forty years from now sue a company that may be out of business now because of the damage done to his property or his person? CO2 emissions aren't isolated either, they mess with the balance way up in the atmosphere - are you going to tell me the average farmer is going to be aware of that co2? How?

Sorry, but private trials would be a farce. A complete farce. You can't just make a court decision and expect it to be carried through, you need power behind that decision for people to actually follow through with it. There needs to be authority where there is to be justice.

You should look into the privatization of rivers and streams. Started in Rumborak's turf, actually. The Ruhrverband

We would have to privatize the ecosystem for your idea to plausibly work. How do you privatize the oceans? Which, I would say, is pragmatically done with the government. Major parts of the ecosystem shouldn't and can't be "owned" by any one person; reality isn't so isolated. If we adopted the measures you suggest, there might be more done in some area's, but it also leaves gigantic holes under the name of a solution.

You start buying it. Maybe a new private ministry creates that starts recognizing who wants land. Depending on the value of that land you buy it. Where the money goes? (This is me just throwing ideas, I'm sure better have been proposed but I'll give it a shot.) I will say 3/4 would go to the government and the other quarter to that special new ministry (they have to live with something). Once you pay for what the land costs you'll have your recognition by the State and the ministry.

Say someone wants to exploit your land. Well, since finally there's an owner who cares for his land, the "devastation" of it will be minimal. You'll have a contract with the company who wants to work in that land. Both of you win. A boat crosses your territorial sea land, you'll know. You'll charge him a fee for being in your property (if you want of course, better for you; more money to you). This way it'll be easier to know who contaminated your property, who's fishing in your territory etc. Contamination problem will reduce significantly (and by that I mean a lot) because people will finally be careful of what they throw to the water; they will finally respond to someone who really cares.

You start buying it. Maybe a new private ministry creates that starts recognizing who wants land. Depending on the value of that land you buy it. Where the money goes? (This is me just throwing ideas, I'm sure better have been proposed but I'll give it a shot.) I will say 3/4 would go to the government and the other quarter to that special new ministry (they have to live with something). Once you pay for what the land costs you'll have your recognition by the State and the ministry.

Say someone wants to exploit your land. Well, since finally there's an owner who cares for his land, the "devastation" of it will be minimal. You'll have a contract with the company who wants to work in that land. Both of you win. A boat crosses your territorial sea land, you'll know. You'll charge him a fee for being in your property (if you want of course, better for you; more money to you). This way it'll be easier to know who contaminated your property, who's fishing in your territory etc. Contamination problem will reduce significantly (and by that I mean a lot) because people will finally be careful of what they throw to the water; they will finally respond to someone who really cares.

See there's the problem - you equated ecosystem with land. They are not the same, at all.

You start buying it. Maybe a new private ministry creates that starts recognizing who wants land. Depending on the value of that land you buy it. Where the money goes? (This is me just throwing ideas, I'm sure better have been proposed but I'll give it a shot.) I will say 3/4 would go to the government and the other quarter to that special new ministry (they have to live with something). Once you pay for what the land costs you'll have your recognition by the State and the ministry.

Say someone wants to exploit your land. Well, since finally there's an owner who cares for his land, the "devastation" of it will be minimal. You'll have a contract with the company who wants to work in that land. Both of you win. A boat crosses your territorial sea land, you'll know. You'll charge him a fee for being in your property (if you want of course, better for you; more money to you). This way it'll be easier to know who contaminated your property, who's fishing in your territory etc. Contamination problem will reduce significantly (and by that I mean a lot) because people will finally be careful of what they throw to the water; they will finally respond to someone who really cares.

See there's the problem - you equated ecosystem with land. They are not the same, at all.

How the hell do you expect to privatize an ecosystem? You privatize land. Animals can still use it. Their ecosystem is not necessarily going to be affected. Besides, I bet they'll be much safer when there's private property than they are now.

You start buying it. Maybe a new private ministry creates that starts recognizing who wants land. Depending on the value of that land you buy it. Where the money goes? (This is me just throwing ideas, I'm sure better have been proposed but I'll give it a shot.) I will say 3/4 would go to the government and the other quarter to that special new ministry (they have to live with something). Once you pay for what the land costs you'll have your recognition by the State and the ministry.

Say someone wants to exploit your land. Well, since finally there's an owner who cares for his land, the "devastation" of it will be minimal. You'll have a contract with the company who wants to work in that land. Both of you win. A boat crosses your territorial sea land, you'll know. You'll charge him a fee for being in your property (if you want of course, better for you; more money to you). This way it'll be easier to know who contaminated your property, who's fishing in your territory etc. Contamination problem will reduce significantly (and by that I mean a lot) because people will finally be careful of what they throw to the water; they will finally respond to someone who really cares.

See there's the problem - you equated ecosystem with land. They are not the same, at all.

How the hell do you expect to privatize an ecosystem? You privatize land. Animals can still use it. Not necessarily their ecosystem are going to be affected. Besides, I bet they'll be much safer when there's private property than they are now.

My point exactly, and that's exactly what you require if you want to adaquately and justifiably have private ownership take care of it. The ecosystem, in toto, is what matters; not the pieces of land which are found on it but the ways the animals and the environment on that land interacts. The ecosystem requires cooperation.

If our ecosystem is affected, so is "theirs." It's not as if each animal has it's own ecosystem, each animals fits into the ecosystem in different ways. It's also besides the point: Jobe said himself that people are free to do what they want insofar as they don't harm other people. He didn't say harm "what" people (the landowners or not), but people. Your system has too many holes which can't be filled, as in who exactly has the ability to protect their land. A company in Canada spewing out certain chemicals harms the ecosystem in a way which affects a tiny village fisher in Indonesia. DDT is to be found all over the world now, and not because it was USED all over the world. In what fantasy land is the Indonesian farmer going to be able to know he's being directly harmed by those chemicals, and then have the ability to SUE over it?

If our ecosystem is affected, so is "theirs." It's not as if each animal has it's own ecosystem, each animals fits into the ecosystem in different ways. It's also besides the point: Jobe said himself that people are free to do what they want insofar as they don't harm other people. He didn't say harm "what" people (the landowners or not), but people. Your system has too many holes which can't be filled, as in who exactly has the ability to protect their land. A company in Canada spewing out certain chemicals harms the ecosystem in a way which affects a tiny village fisher in Indonesia. DDT is to be found all over the world now, and not because it was USED all over the world. In what fantasy land is the Indonesian farmer going to be able to know he's being directly harmed by those chemicals, and then have the ability to SUE over it?

Dude, are you ignoring present time? People own farms and share limits with their neighbours. Has that in a way affected the ecosystem? People own land and most of the time they don't exploit it. They just like the way it is. It's just that it's THEIR property. You have to stop thinking that EVERYTHING is going to be exploited. People take more care for their stuff than "public" property ever does.

If our ecosystem is affected, so is "theirs." It's not as if each animal has it's own ecosystem, each animals fits into the ecosystem in different ways. It's also besides the point: Jobe said himself that people are free to do what they want insofar as they don't harm other people. He didn't say harm "what" people (the landowners or not), but people. Your system has too many holes which can't be filled, as in who exactly has the ability to protect their land. A company in Canada spewing out certain chemicals harms the ecosystem in a way which affects a tiny village fisher in Indonesia. DDT is to be found all over the world now, and not because it was USED all over the world. In what fantasy land is the Indonesian farmer going to be able to know he's being directly harmed by those chemicals, and then have the ability to SUE over it?

Dude, are you ignoring present time? People own farms and share limits with their neighbours. Has that in a way affected the ecosystem? People own land and most of the time they don't exploit it. They just like the way it is. It's just that it's THEIR property. You have to stop thinking that EVERYTHING is going to be exploited. People take more care for their stuff than "public" property ever does.

You are completely misinterpreting my argument, or ignoring other parts of it. This isn't about land owners exploiting anything, it's about companies using manufacturing processes and chemicals which affects EVERYONE and EVERYTHING with an ecosystem. It's also about the philosophical justification of regulation upon the SAME classical liberal ideaology which criminalizes murder and theft. It's about the fact that you, jobe and the libertarians on this forum afford more rights and less restrictions to businesses and corporations than you allow a citizen.

Seriously, why do you just jump to your own conclusions and assume that I must be taking those conclusions myself? I don't think I even once mentioned (even indirectly) the idea that landowners would exploit the land they have; and that this is the reason I don't think your plan would work so wonderfully as you assume. Is it because I'm taking an environmentalist stance that you assume I must align myself with everything environmentalists imagine or think?

As for the bolded part: of course it fucking has. As you kidding me? My being alive has affected the ecoystem. It isn't a question of affection, but a question of consequences. Farmers have and always will drastically affect the ecosystem in which they exist. This isn't even a question if, it's a question of how.

You are completely misinterpreting my argument, or ignoring other parts of it. This isn't about land owners exploiting anything, it's about companies using manufacturing processes and chemicals which affects EVERYONE and EVERYTHING with an ecosystem. It's also about the philosophical justification of regulation upon the SAME classical liberal ideaology which criminalizes murder and theft. It's about the fact that you, jobe and the libertarians on this forum afford more rights and less restrictions to businesses and corporations than you allow a citizen.

Seriously, why do you just jump to your own conclusions and assume that I must be taking those conclusions myself? I don't think I even once mentioned (even indirectly) the idea that landowners would exploit the land they have; and that this is the reason I don't think your plan would work so wonderfully as you assume. Is it because I'm taking an environmentalist stance that you assume I must align myself with everything environmentalists imagine or think?

As for the bolded part: of course it fucking has. As you kidding me? My being alive has affected the ecoystem. It isn't a question of affection, but a question of consequences. Farmers have and always will drastically affect the ecosystem in which they exist. This isn't even a question if, it's a question of how.

OK. Fine. EVERYTHING AFFECTS EVERYTHING. We know that. You just ignore that the Libertarian proposition is giving the best alternative for the world to live in a better place! If people own land they can sue whoever is damaging it! The companies can ONLY damage theirs! It's that simple. They can do whatever they want as long as they don't affect the rest! Have I not worded my ideas properly for you not to get the argument? What's that I'm forgetting to say?

Everything we do has a reaction. The best solution for the Earth is if we all of us humans commit suicide and stop polluting it. That's what you prefer? We have to live here, but we also have to find ways for this Earth to last. And that's what my ideas (technically not mine) are presenting.

Why do you have a double standard, one for companies and one for people? Why is it fine for government to regulate murder, but wrong for it to regulate such harmful consequences? THAT'S what you aren't answering, that's the point I'm getting at the point you continually ignore. Even after I restate that this is my point, you come back with something which isn't about this.

Where have I ever intoned that man is a virus or that we are intrinsically harmful to nature? Keep jumping to these stereotypes, it's rather entertaining. You seem to be thinking that humanity is apart of nature, when in fact it is simply a part of it. Your displaying a dichotomy which simply does not exist. More and more, science is starting to back this up. It's not about living apart from nature, it's about living with nature. The bacteria on your skin is usually good and wards against harmful bacteria; the worms and bacteria in your stomach helps you digest properly and leaves you healthier; living in an ultra-sterile environment foments allergies and a weak immune system; etc, etc. What's good for nature is good for us (as we are natural).

Why not the government, you ask? Because they have proven that they can't do it right. What government does, the Free Market can do it better. Free Market can protect better this world than government.

Why not the government, you ask? Because they have proven that they can't do it right. What government does, the Free Market can do it better. Free Market can protect better this world than government.

I can frame laws against ANYTHING in such a way. I can easily argue that the government should abolish all laws against murder and theft, as without the government, society would naturally do away with the people it doesn't appreciate of. If you didn't have government, then someone who goes around kiling people will just find himself dead. Problem solved, yes? And without the need of "the big bad government!" So why is it that we don't do this?

Yet I doubt you go as far as to suggest these laws should be done away with (especially laws against theft, seeing as how I'm guessing you view the right to property as something vital); so then why is it fine for the government to regulate interactions between it's individual citizens when such free interactions harm others (no murder, no theft, etc), but not for government to regulate the interactions which occur between companies and businesses when such interactions harm others?

Why not the government, you ask? Because they have proven that they can't do it right. What government does, the Free Market can do it better. Free Market can protect better this world than government.

I can frame laws against ANYTHING in such a way. I can easily argue that the government should abolish all laws against murder and theft, as without the government, society would naturally do away with the people it doesn't appreciate of. If you didn't have government, then someone who goes around kiling people will just find himself dead. Problem solved, yes? And without the need of "the big bad government!" So why is it that we don't do this?

Yet I doubt you go as far as to suggest these laws should be done away with (especially laws against theft, seeing as how I'm guessing you view the right to property as something vital); so then why is it fine for the government to regulate interactions between it's individual citizens when such free interactions harm others (no murder, no theft, etc), but not for government to regulate the interactions which occur between companies and businesses when such interactions harm others?

The problem I have is with big government. Government I can tolerate; big government that starts making things that it shouldn't, no thanks. Police? Hell, they never get on time. They never trap the bad guys. They aren't really motivated to solve x case. They just have guns and think they are the law. Bounty hunters do a better job than them. Why? Money. And Money = motivation. Police supposedly try to "protect and serve" but are really lousy at their jobs. The things the government should do are minimal.

Why not the government, you ask? Because they have proven that they can't do it right. What government does, the Free Market can do it better. Free Market can protect better this world than government.

I can frame laws against ANYTHING in such a way. I can easily argue that the government should abolish all laws against murder and theft, as without the government, society would naturally do away with the people it doesn't appreciate of. If you didn't have government, then someone who goes around kiling people will just find himself dead. Problem solved, yes? And without the need of "the big bad government!" So why is it that we don't do this?

Yet I doubt you go as far as to suggest these laws should be done away with (especially laws against theft, seeing as how I'm guessing you view the right to property as something vital); so then why is it fine for the government to regulate interactions between it's individual citizens when such free interactions harm others (no murder, no theft, etc), but not for government to regulate the interactions which occur between companies and businesses when such interactions harm others?

The problem I have is with big government. Government I can tolerate; big government that starts making things that it shouldn't, no thanks. Police? Hell, they never get on time. They never trap the bad guys. They aren't really motivated to solve x case. They just have guns and think they are the law. Bounty hunters do a better job than them. Why? Money. And Money = motivation. Police supposedly try to "protect and serve" but are really lousy at their jobs. The things the government should do are minimal.

I wish I could read more of the studies, but I found two quite new ones (disproving older theories) which showed an affect of the actual presence of crime on crime rate.

As for the bolded part, that's what we're arguing about, or at least what I originally asked Jobe about; and I'm saying that by the same logic that the government should and can regulate murder, theft, etc, and be within it's propriety, it should and can regulate business. It's applying social contract theory to not just individuals in a country, but the businesses that operate in the same country.

So what happens when the bounty hunter catches the bank robber, and the bank robber just splits half his take with him to get off?

And who pays the bounty hunter?

Wow, I forgot about this discussion.

The point I was trying to make was that bounty hunters do a better job because they are getting paid for that job. Sure, a regular cop has a salary, but he has it more or less guaranteed... and it generally suck. A bounty hunter may be given more money depending on the difficulty of his task (kept within legal standards, of course).

So, in a Free Market society, instead of a bureau being paid by the State through tax payers, there's a legal private company paid by clients. Much more effective, if you ask me. Not necessarily with the name "bounty hunters", but they'll come up with a much more appealing name for the public. So the clients will pay them if they want, not by force like the tax payers have to.

1) You're making the victims of a crime pay to have the criminal captured. So you can kill someone with no family and it's perfectly fine? Not to mention how incredibly fucked up that is anyways.

2) Who responds to crimes in progress? If some guy's beating the hell out of his wife, she can't call, and what neighbor is going to pay? This applies to pretty much everything though. If you see some guy sneaking around your neighbor's house, the cops come and check it out. It could be totally legit, it could be a burglar. But in your case, someone would have to pay. "Yeah, it was just a friend who came by to check on the house while they're on vacation. That'll be 50 bucks". Cops do far more than just catch a criminal, and none of that at all applies to a private security firm.

3) What exactly is the role of government in your mind? You always say they're there to protect us, yet apparently not if the police should be privatized.

1) You're making the victims of a crime pay to have the criminal captured. So you can kill someone with no family and it's perfectly fine? Not to mention how incredibly fucked up that is anyways.

2) Who responds to crimes in progress? If some guy's beating the hell out of his wife, she can't call, and what neighbor is going to pay? This applies to pretty much everything though. If you see some guy sneaking around your neighbor's house, the cops come and check it out. It could be totally legit, it could be a burglar. But in your case, someone would have to pay. "Yeah, it was just a friend who came by to check on the house while they're on vacation. That'll be 50 bucks". Cops do far more than just catch a criminal, and none of that at all applies to a private security firm.

3) What exactly is the role of government in your mind? You always say they're there to protect us, yet apparently not if the police should be privatized.

1) The role of the Free Market is to reduce the size of the government. Not to annihilate it. Reducing the size of the cops is a tax relief. That's a fact. So cops would still exist, only that their work would be cut in half (or even more). You would still pay taxes. That could go directed to the cops and solve the mysterious crime of lonely Mrs. Jenkins who we really don't give a shit about, but anyway we still contribute so "justice" can be made. You see, you have less burden and the job is still done, even if you are poor.

2) It's not going to be that different with what we have today. You may have a contract with the company, just the same as if you pay for an alarm system. You suspect that someone is breaking into your house? You call them. Or you call the police. Now that I'm paying for my private security system I just might well use it. Not all of the times they charge for a distress call (and I've done some). Hell, they even come and check your house every day to see if everything is alright. The monthly fee pays for it.

3) As explained above, not everything has to be privatized. Maybe in the future it will. Who knows? I didn't came up with this projects, yet I'm really sure that someone has given more head to it than me and has a more coherent and better proposition. And still it sounds more productive than with what we have now.

1) The role of the Free Market is to reduce the size of the government. Not to annihilate it.

I'd say the FM is entirely capable of replacing it and is better at doing the positive things gov does and less harmful than everything else the gov does.

You can either argue for a market anarchy, or concede to a limited government to take care of the things that most people will scoff at the idea of the market taking care our, (police services, military, etc) and have the market take care of the rest.

Of course, when talking to non-libertarians, I usually stick to some form of limited government, i.e. the constitution, it's usually only within libertarian circles when there can be serious discussions like poly-centric legal systems and things like this. (http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf)

1) The role of the Free Market is to reduce the size of the government. Not to annihilate it.

I'd say the FM is entirely capable of replacing it and is better at doing the positive things gov does and less harmful than everything else the gov does.

You can either argue for a market anarchy, or concede to a limited government to take care of the things that most people will scoff at the idea of the market taking care our, (police services, military, etc) and have the market take care of the rest.

Of course, when talking to non-libertarians, I usually stick to some form of limited government, i.e. the constitution, it's usually only within libertarian circles when there can be serious discussions like poly-centric legal systems and things like this. (http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf)

You know pretty well your constitution; I don't. So I can't use that as an argument when talking to people here (in my Country).

I know that FM can do a better job than the government. And where "I'm educating myself" show me some good arguments as to why. Yet I'm still absorbing the ideas. Currently I'm reading Bastiat and I'm just in awe of the genius this guy was. :hefdaddy I'm just starting my path. I'm sure the answers will be much clearer in the future.

I started jogging and was playing around with my times for distance and noticed the mph was damn near the minutes per mile.

If you go X miles in Y minutes, then to get the mph you go X*60/Y, and to get the minutes per mile you just take Y/X, so to set them equal take X/Y as a ratio of Z and it's 60/Z = Z

Which of course is sqrt(60).

Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction? I don't recall reading anything.

Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction? I don't recall reading anything.

From a techincal perspective speed cannot have a negative value, only velocity can, because speed is simply a magnitude, while velocity is a vector - a magnitude with corresponding direction. But AFAIK, there's no other meaning behind a negative velocity other than the opposite direction.

Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction? I don't recall reading anything.

From a technical perspective speed cannot have a negative value, only velocity can, because speed is simply a magnitude, while velocity is a vector - a magnitude with corresponding direction. But AFAIK, there's no other meaning behind a negative velocity other than the opposite direction.

Well yeah, I knew that, but then I thought about the possibility of traveling away from all points in space simultaneously, (a.k.a. tangent), most likely on another spatial direction.

Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction? I don't recall reading anything.

From a technical perspective speed cannot have a negative value, only velocity can, because speed is simply a magnitude, while velocity is a vector - a magnitude with corresponding direction. But AFAIK, there's no other meaning behind a negative velocity other than the opposite direction.

Well yeah, I knew that, but then I thought about the possibility of traveling away from all points in space simultaneously, (a.k.a. tangent), most likely on another spatial direction.

Well it would have to be moving in a spatial frame otherwise you still don't have any velocity/speed.

Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction? I don't recall reading anything.

From a technical perspective speed cannot have a negative value, only velocity can, because speed is simply a magnitude, while velocity is a vector - a magnitude with corresponding direction. But AFAIK, there's no other meaning behind a negative velocity other than the opposite direction.

Well yeah, I knew that, but then I thought about the possibility of traveling away from all points in space simultaneously, (a.k.a. tangent), most likely on another spatial direction.

Well it would have to be moving in a spatial frame otherwise you still don't have any velocity/speed.

Spatial, but not up/down, left/right or forward/back, so I suppose moving along a 4th dimension could be considered negative velocity/speed.

Which of course has a negative solution... hey, have you read anything about any theoretical meaning to the concept of negative speed other than going in the opposite direction? I don't recall reading anything.

From a technical perspective speed cannot have a negative value, only velocity can, because speed is simply a magnitude, while velocity is a vector - a magnitude with corresponding direction. But AFAIK, there's no other meaning behind a negative velocity other than the opposite direction.

Well yeah, I knew that, but then I thought about the possibility of traveling away from all points in space simultaneously, (a.k.a. tangent), most likely on another spatial direction.

Well it would have to be moving in a spatial frame otherwise you still don't have any velocity/speed.

Spatial, but not up/down, left/right or forward/back, so I suppose moving along a 4th dimension could be considered negative velocity/speed.

Velocity would still be negative under the same rules, and speed could still never be negative. You can do the math (even if it's impossible to truly comprehend what it says).

The problem with this is that its totally relative, based on what you're measuring the velocity against. Negative velocity has no inherent meaning, because velocity has no inherent meaning in the physical world besides what you apply it towards - it can be just one dimension, it can be three, it can be whatever, as long as you have distance/time.

The problem with this is that its totally relative, based on what you're measuring the velocity against. Negative velocity has no inherent meaning, because velocity has no inherent meaning in the physical world besides what you apply it towards - it can be just one dimension, it can be three, it can be whatever, as long as you have distance/time.

Well that's what it comes down to, can you have negative distance or negative time? Assuming a cohesive flow of time, no negative time. Negative distance is what I was aiming for. And yes, it's all entirely arbitrary, I understand that, we could call say an electron carries a positive charge and rewrite all the books.

I just started writing for this website (http://www.examiner.com/x-12638-El-Dorado-County-Conservative-Examiner). If you like conversing with me here, you may like reading and commenting on my articles. Check it out and subscribe.

I'm not sure why, but the combination of those two smileys make me laugh and is easily the third funniest thing I've seen this morning (behind the Amazon reviews thread and the new KISS Mr. Potatohead collector's edition).

As the CFO of this business that employs 140 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama is our new President and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, I figure that our clients will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8%, but since we cannot increase our fees right now due to the dismal state of our economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead.

This has really been eating at me for a while, as we believe we are family here and I didn't know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what I did.. I strolled through our parking lot and found 8 Obama bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I can't think of a more fair way to approach this problem. These folks wanted change; I'm giving it to them.

Regarding management: Huh, that's the deal here. Our president is the image on how the country should be managed term by term. Why the hell do we need a Constitution if it's gonna be amended when he wants it? Blind Faith. What a shame.

Any boss who'd make such silly assumptions based on nothing but party association is:A: So incompetent that the business would fail anyway.B: Such a stunning asshole that the Obama supporters would be happy to leave.C. Get shot 7 times by the gun toting Republican asshats that didn't get laid off as soon as A happens and they realize B.

All you say is: "No." "Lol". "Now wait a minute, man". The only thing we know is that you are socialist, but as far as defending your position with clear arguments, positions, support by other authors you pretty much aren't saying anything.

All you say is: "No." "Lol". "Now wait a minute, man". The only thing we know is that you are socialist, but as far as defending your position with clear arguments, positions, support by other authors you pretty much aren't saying anything.

All you say is: "No." "Lol". "Now wait a minute, man". The only thing we know is that you are socialist, but as far as defending your position with clear arguments, positions, support by other authors you pretty much aren't saying anything.

All you say is: "No." "Lol". "Now wait a minute, man". The only thing we know is that you are socialist, but as far as defending your position with clear arguments, positions, support by other authors you pretty much aren't saying anything.

The very fact that you call me socialist shows that either a) you see political beliefs as a total binary choice, or b) just pigeonhole your opponents into one group so you can throw the same canned arguments at them. I'm guessing it's a combination of the two, but either way it's exactly this kind of stuff that's made me lose interest in posting here.

All you say is: "No." "Lol". "Now wait a minute, man". The only thing we know is that you are socialist, but as far as defending your position with clear arguments, positions, support by other authors you pretty much aren't saying anything.

The very fact that you call me socialist shows that either a) you see political beliefs as a total binary choice, or b) just pigeonhole your opponents into one group so you can throw the same canned arguments at them. I'm guessing it's a combination of the two, but either way it's exactly this kind of stuff that's made me lose interest in posting here.

Well, well, well. We have a rebel within our selves, everybody. He doesn't likes to be labelled. AND he doesn't likes to say anything about himself because we, the plebs, have no possible insight to his brilliant mind of abstraction and superiority. He cannot waste another second with us, the vague minds that cannot discuss something worth for his brains.

Dude, if you seriously think I'm stopping from posting out of some sense of intellectual superiority, then I don't what else there is to say. I'm simply sick of every thread (besides Andy's) coming down to either "the government is good/bad" or "the bible is right/wrong". Those two things have become the Kevin Moore of P/R.

All you say is: "No." "Lol". "Now wait a minute, man". The only thing we know is that you are socialist, but as far as defending your position with clear arguments, positions, support by other authors you pretty much aren't saying anything.

The very fact that you call me socialist shows that either a) you see political beliefs as a total binary choice, or b) just pigeonhole your opponents into one group so you can throw the same canned arguments at them. I'm guessing it's a combination of the two, but either way it's exactly this kind of stuff that's made me lose interest in posting here.

Well, well, well. We have a rebel within our selves, everybody. He doesn't likes to be labelled. AND he doesn't likes to say anything about himself because we, the plebs, have no possible insight to his brilliant mind of abstraction and superiority. He cannot waste another second with us, the vague minds that cannot discuss something worth for his brains.

So libertarians, one of your arguments against things like the FDA is the amount of money it wastes, "it's a huge waste of taxpayer money!" That's a common rallying cry against every sort of governmental administration. But the FDA's annual budget is ~$3 billion, and that's after Obama raised it. That's $10 a person in this country, little less, a year. I honestly doubt people are going to notice $10 less a year, or hell $20 less a year, for the FDA when it can accomplish something important if done properly.

Feel free to report it to a moderator, but I personally don't classify breasts as explicit nudity especially now that it is tagged with my equivalent of an NSFW sign.

You should listen to em...he's a sharp kid.

Refer to rule #1. Like it or not, agree with the US's phobia of the human body or not, exposed breasts count. I can see where you're coming from, so no warning or anything, but please keep this in mind.

He seems half insane (not necessarily wrong), and in the end he's laying most of the blame upon the Corporate entity Goldman Sachs for having a silent coup in the American government. What charges he brings against the government are becuase of this take over, not against government qua government.

He's not necessarily wrong, but he didn't offered a real answer or counterargument to why the caller was wrong. He just let himself drive by emotion. You can notice hos he's really new at Libertarianism. He knows the caller is wrong but he didn't had the patience, serenity nor the sufficient wisdom to give a rational answer. That's why he achieved the ass-hole position that easily.

He's not necessarily wrong, but he didn't offered a real answer or counterargument to why the caller was wrong. He just let himself drive by emotion. You can notice hos he's really new at Libertarianism. He knows the caller is wrong but he didn't had the patience, serenity nor the sufficient wisdom to give a rational answer. That's why he achieved the ass-hole position that easily.

I would say you described pretty well what I would call "dumb." You can be dumb and "right," what makes someone intelligent is the reasons for their beliefs not the beliefs themselves.

The guy seems to split the difference between Liberals and Libertarians on this board.

And I think his poin about cancer was pretty much yours. Immediately speaking, the economy would probably get a good boost from people getting cancer. Any savings people have are going to start going away, and more money is going to be spent. It will appear good on the stock market and investors will think something good is coming. It's attacking the current business evaluation in our country; that is, it's trying to re-evaulating what makes something good for the economy. Right now, it's pure and simply measured by profits.

Hey Em. Didn't want to bring this up in the Apollo thread in the GD board, but can you recognize that there are things that can improve humanity that the private sector won't do on it's own? Somethings should transcend profit margins.

Hey Em. Didn't want to bring this up in the Apollo thread in the GD board, but can you recognize that there are things that can improve humanity that the private sector won't do on it's own? Somethings should transcend profit margins.

Where you watching that interview with the aaaaaaaaaastronaut last night?

Hey Em. Didn't want to bring this up in the Apollo thread in the GD board, but can you recognize that there are things that can improve humanity that the private sector won't do on it's own? Somethings should transcend profit margins.

Where you watching that interview with the aaaaaaaaaastronaut last night?

I was in a McD when it was on... really bad channel, had some dumbass saying, "and that's why I really hate the libertarian party," talking about healthcare, right after he totalllllly misrepresented libertarian views.

Anyway, not everything is driven by profits, like... charities! Which include scientific endeavors, or things done for pure knowledge or truth! Seriously, open your eyes man, many, many unprofitable things are done right now in the private sector.

Hey Em. Didn't want to bring this up in the Apollo thread in the GD board, but can you recognize that there are things that can improve humanity that the private sector won't do on it's own? Somethings should transcend profit margins.

I don't know. Sometimes we say we advance too fast, sometimes we say we're moving too slow. We never seem to know why. We sometimes think that the greater good is the option, and we must pursuit quickly and at all costs. I happen not to agree with. I've quoted this before, but I never get tired of repeating what Mary Shelley wrote:

A human being in perfection ought always to preserve a calm and peaceful mind, and never to allow passion or a transitory desire to disturb his tranquillity. I do not think that the pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this rule. If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections, and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind. If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquillity of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved; Caesar would have spared his country; America would have been discovered more gradually; and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed.

Colombia has just signed a "cooperation" with the USA where they will bring the latest technology in military airplanes (Colombia is also receiving atm some Israelis Jet planes) so they can fight the guerilla and shut down their drug traffic (so they don't get more resources and also intercept the guerilla leaders phones and radios in real time and blast those fuckers). But Chávez went crazy saying that what we just agreed to do with the Americans is an "unfriendly" action. So he calls for a total revision of our diplomatic relationships and is going to stop buying our products. He also just confirmed that he's now (as in tonight) buying some tanks from from Russia to make the borders more secure because we and the US Military are going to invade him or facilitate the US entry to Venezuela in a future and near attack or invasion. Apparently you (and us) want his oil.

They guy is just crazy. He's saying that we are now the new Israel of America! Fuck him!

Colombia has just signed a "cooperation" with the USA where they will bring the latest technology in military airplanes (Colombia is also receiving atm some Israelis Jet planes) so they can fight the guerilla and shut down their drug traffic (so they don't get more resources and also intercept the guerilla leaders phones and radios in real time and blast those fuckers). But Chávez went crazy saying that what we just agreed to do with the Americans is an "unfriendly" action. So he calls for a total revision of our diplomatic relationships and is going to stop buying our products. He also just confirmed that he's now (as in tonight) buying some tanks from from Russia to make the borders more secure because we and the US Military are going to invade him or facilitate the US entry to Venezuela in a future and near attack or invasion. Apparently you (and us) want his oil.

They guy is just crazy. He's saying that we are now the new Israel of America! Fuck him!

Truth be told, he's right in a few of those areas. Helping people fight guerrillas is precisely how we've fucked up huge chunks of the world. Helping you guys kill drug dealers is a pretty shitty move, as well. We do want his oil. We have a long standing history of climbing into bed with questionable people (no offense) because we have issues with their neighbors. So his comparison of you guys to Israel is somewhat valid. And lastly, I figure that dude probably already had the biggest collection of T-72s in this hemisphere, along with a lot of other nice but slightly outdated Soviet era hardware.

On a more interpersonal level, he's doing what a lot of leaders of fast-growing medium size countries do. He's bolstering himself by being a thorn in our side. It's a time honored tradition that usually works pretty well. What are we going to do, liberate them? Didn't work for Hussein, but nobody expected Bush to be the simpleminded lunatic that he was. For the most part, it's just talking big to someone you know is out of range.

I agree that the USA should give us no help (though I think I'm the only guy around here saying that). To be fair he does think that the CIA orchestrated that Coup against him in 2002 (the CIA has a bad reputation doing that).

What surprises me is that we were from 1988-1998 the most hated country by you guys and when Pastrana came into presidency, and all the help he got from Clinton, we became your new best friend all of a sudden.

I think the problem is that we (Colombia) want nothing to do with Chávez and Venezuela other than commercial affairs (like with any other country). We just want to solve our internal crisis, but Chávez has been helping our guerrilla, he is giving them weapons and shelter. He has meddled in Colombia's internal affairs (and I say that with the most integral objectivity, even though I'm Colombian). He has expressed that he wants to annex Colombia and Venezuela (and Ecuador) again, just like Simón Bolivar (our Libertador) always wanted and recreate La Gran Colombia. He has in the Venezuelan Constitution "arguments" that he can reclaim La Guajira (the department at the North of Colombia) and part of where the River Orinoco ends in Colombia. I think we have more justification to go into war with Chávez than him with us.

Now, if you say that Chávez has a problem with the USA, of course he has! That doesn't mean we're going to get in the way (or who knows, but I frankly believe we won't).

And you are right, the USA should gtfo out of the South ASAP and let ourselves run our own business once and for all.

Hey Reapsta. What's your problem with Miranda vs. Arizona? I can think of a couple of possible reasons, but neither of them are very good, honestly.

Just to quote the Miranda warning for reference:

Quote

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?

That's absolutely true. What I think is ridiculous is how it's the responsibility of the police to inform you. To me, the responsibility is on the citizen to know it beforehand. To me, there's no good reason testimony should be inadmissible if the cops don't read you your Miranda rights. Your fault for not understanding them.

That said, cops should be informing people of their Miranda rights anyway. I don't think the decision is stupid in terms of the practical effects. I'm all for people knowing their rights when the cops are trying to dick them around. I just think it sets bad precedent in two ways. Like I already said, we need to keep consistent on the idea of citizens understanding the law for themselves,* and I really don't like when the Supreme Court makes up rights out of thin air.

*I recognize this is practically almost impossible, which is a problem of the law itself.

Yup, those would be the two. I was gonna give you the spiel about how Americans are stupid and how excluding unlawfully obtained evidence helps to protect our rights, but you already know all that.

Here's an angle you might not have considered, though. I've been detained by the Man on several occasions. As a non-career criminal it's pretty harrowing. It takes a very level head to tell a cop "fuck you, I want my lawyer." I'm here to tell you that most people aren't going to be thinking fifth amendment while they're on the defensive from aggressive assholes with guns. I suspect there are a lot of highly intelligent people who know damn well their constitutional rights, to whom it just doesn't click in their heads until the obligatory speech.

Lol. Chávez has terminated the relations between Colombia and Venezuela because of the US Bases here and the recent problem with the rocket launchers (Sweden sold them to Venezuela in the 90s and on Saturday we bombed a FARC camp and found the rocket launchers there). Sweden demanded an explication and they said "we will explain when the time is right". lol. Bunch of ass-holes. And an hour ago Chávez said he couldn't take it any more. So he called his ambassador here in Bogotá and warned: "Any other declaration against Venezuela in behalf of the Colombian government, we expropriate all the Colombian industries here."

It probably was just and absolutely understandable. However, no cops who were involved in that would be working for my department anymore if I were in charge. Whether the guy deserved it or not, it wasn't the copper's place to do it. Furthermore, they're going to do that before a court appearance? Not only do the cops lack the temperament to be police, they appear to lack common sense as well.

It probably was just and absolutely understandable. However, no cops who were involved in that would be working for my department anymore if I were in charge. Whether the guy deserved it or not, it wasn't the copper's place to do it. Furthermore, they're going to do that before a court appearance? Not only do the cops lack the temperament to be police, they appear to lack common sense as well.

This one, I mostly agree with you. It set's a bad standard, and I don't want vigilante cops taking justice into their hand. That's what the courts are for, and juries.

If you didn't get the full story due to technical problems; He was being questioned for killing an old woman, on the way out of the place he grabbed a detectives gun and point blanked him in the face, dove out the third story window and was caught a few blocks away. The detective died so unofficially I suppose some of the cops beat the bejeesus out of him because that detective was probably a friend/brother in arms/whatever or something like that. FBI investigation didnt turn anything up, but I wouldn't doubt a couple of guys did it on the street or something completely random.

As for the courts thing, the guy was given his fair chance, he had dates schedules, lawyers, all that, and he grabs a gun and kills a guy on his way out of the police station.

That sequence of events makes it a bit different. I thought they kicked his ass right before his court appearance, and therefore, a long time after he offed Johnny. If they did it right after the kaboom, then it was probably a resisting arrest kind of thing.

Watch it till the end: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dPXjQHP_2M&NR=1

I think if you kick/punch someone anywhere which could have potentially serious health side effects (like, say, kicking them in the head), you should lose your job. Hitting the guy a little should be considered part of the punishment for running from police.

I don't have audio, but based on the subtitles it's pretty easy to follow. Isn't lying on a police report a felony? For the third time in 24 hours, these cops are clearly too stupid to be police officers. They were filming themselves. "Dude, videotaping this crime spree is the greatest idea we've ever had!"

About 15 years ago I was at a bank at about 01:00 depositing a check in the ATM. It was deserted so I just pulled up across the 3 closest parking spaces, jumped out and grabbed a deposit slip and went back to my car. About 2 minutes later I here sirens. Some moron thought I was robbing the place and called the cops. "STEP OUT OF THE CAR WITH YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR!" I show my ID, a deposit slip, they determine all is well and that's the end of it. When I'm walking back to the ATM, the cop puts it in reverse, guns it, and slams right the fuck into a concrete pillar. Buried the thing 18" into his trunk. It was priceless. After grabbing some food, I drove back by a half hour later and they're there with their supervisor measuring shit. I loved it. Almost makes up for one or two of the times cops were assholes to me. Frankly, they've got a long ways to go.

So Dickhead drinks Bud Lite and Biden drinks near-beer. Who are these people? Our elected representatives continue to find new ways to disgust me.

Say what you will about Bush, but I don't imagine him making such catastrophic personal failings in his choice of alcoholic beverages.

Actually, I wanna say Bush drank Lone Star as his beer of choice. I wouldn't rank it any lower than Dickhead's Bud Lite, but then I wouldn't call either of them beer. When cameras were on him, he drank the same fake beer as Biden.

What's with your Dickhead nickname for Obozo? Surely you can be a little more creative?

:sadpanda:I really, really tried to come up with something better. Dumbass was just so fitting for his predecessor, and I really wanted to come up with something as good. What I came up with was Uncle Sambo, but I figured that might get me into trouble. Besides, my contempt for the man has nothing whatsoever to do with his race, and I wouldn't want people to think otherwise. Hell, he's whiter than I am as far as I'm concerned. In casual conversation I had kept referring to him as "that dickhead in the White House," and as is so often the case, it just kind of defaulted into his nickname.

Well that's just stupid. Someone's taste buds is somehow supposed to tell you something about that person? The bumps on your head have as much credibility.

You go to an upscale French restaurant with two other guys. One orders Prawns, caesar salad, lobster bisque, rabbit with sweetbreads, and the Grand Marnier souffle. The other guy orders fish sticks and mac & cheese from the kids menu. Did that just tell you something about the two of them?

Edit: It could tell you that the fist stick guy had giant juevos and ordered what he actually felt like eating, but that makes a pretty bold statement as well.

Why would someone primarily drink Bud Light? (a) Undeveloped taste buds (b) Merely trying to get drunk (c) You have no interest in trying better, showing a lack of interest in the fineries of life we're offered (d) Brand Loyalty, which is chilling (e) Trying to pander to the American public. None of those reasons look good. Drinking fake beer is just so out there I can't even begin to comprehend it. Unless Biden is a non-drinker for some kind of moral or personal reason.

I don't consider myself a beer connoisseur, but I can at least drink a real beer (Yeungling) if I want.

Well that's just stupid. Someone's taste buds is somehow supposed to tell you something about that person? The bumps on your head have as much credibility.

You go to an upscale French restaurant with two other guys. One orders Prawns, caesar salad, lobster bisque, rabbit with sweetbreads, and the Grand Marnier souffle. The other guy orders fish sticks and mac & cheese from the kids menu. Did that just tell you something about the two of them?

Edit: It could tell you that the fist stick guy had giant juevos and ordered what he actually felt like eating, but that makes a pretty bold statement as well.

You not only compared an entire menu of items, but also likes and dislikes. You start to admit as much in your edit; but either way, if all you knew is what they ordered, you would most likely have no fucking clue as to what they're like. Sure, you can make a wild assumption, and probably will - but I'm going to guess you're also going to be wrong. There could mean many reasons for someone ordering what he did, and these still hardly say anything alone about the guy. Sure, if you're having dinner with the guy (meaning you're interacting with him constantly, talking with him, etc), this may have a role to play in your opinion of the guy. But that's becuase you then have a lot more information to draw upon and make a conclusion, and not some random piece of information that doesn't really mean much.

Seriously, this is like finding out Obama listens to Fall Out Boy and somehow saying this shows something about his character. Maybe he's not too keen on beer, like lots of people, and finds shit beers the most tolerable? Maybe it's reapsta's a), which means basically nothing. It's hardly something to object to (I really fail to see how this "doesn't look good." Holy shit, he hasn't developed a taste bud for beer? Have you developed the taste for growling music? How about cheese, caviar or fine wine? The list could keep going).

So you're going to tell me that you wouldn't think any different of him if he wore a Jonas Brothers t-shirt or a "sold out" Score shirt? Bullshit. You would make assumptions and they'd probably be right. We pass judgment on people all the time based on appearances.

And for the record, I suspect it was Reapsta's A & E. It's C that concerns me, though. I'd really like to think we're represented by somebody with at least a modicum of intellectual curiosity.

So you're going to tell me that you wouldn't think any different of him if he wore a Jonas Brothers t-shirt or a "sold out" Score shirt? Bullshit. You would make assumptions and they'd probably be right. We pass judgment on people all the time based on appearances.

And for the record, I suspect it was Reapsta's A & E. It's C that concerns me, though. I'd really like to think we're represented by somebody with at least a modicum of intellectual curiosity.

I agree with you there, but we don't simply do it based upon what the person is wearing. How is the person walking, talking, moving, holding himself, behave, act, who is he with and why does he appear to be there? In other words, when we do so, we judge based upon the whole, the parts matter only in so much as they make up the whole. You can't simplify it down to one specific thing about the person and describe his entire whole. For one, that's a fallacy.

And if Obama was wearing either t-shirt, I would seriously not giving a fucking shit. People like music for many different reasons and they rarely do they have anything to do with personality, and they especially don't come close to being worthy of judgment.

And at no point did I say that Obama sucks because he drinks Bud Lite. He sucks, and he has poor taste in beer. I brought the whole thing up because had he sat down with a cold, refreshing Sierra Nevada, I might have actually had a reason to like the guy. Instead he gave me yet another reason to be disappointed in him.

And at no point did I say that Obama sucks because he drinks Bud Lite. He sucks, and he has poor taste in beer. I brought the whole thing up because had he sat down with a cold, refreshing Sierra Nevada, I might have actually had a reason to like the guy. Instead he gave me yet another reason to be disappointed in him.

And at no point did I say that Obama sucks because he drinks Bud Lite. He sucks, and he has poor taste in beer. I brought the whole thing up because had he sat down with a cold, refreshing Sierra Nevada, I might have actually had a reason to like the guy. Instead he gave me yet another reason to be disappointed in him.

Any time there's a forum thread about beer, everybody on the East Coast rants and raves about how it's the best beer in the world. Might be, I wouldn't know. But since they only sell to 5 states, it doesn't really matter. I'd love to try it, but if they won't sell it to me, I'd just as soon never hear about it ever again.

On the bright side, there are probably some great Colorado and California beers that you yanks don't get, so perhaps it evens out.

Any time there's a forum thread about beer, everybody on the East Coast rants and raves about how it's the best beer in the world. Might be, I wouldn't know. But since they only sell to 5 states, it doesn't really matter. I'd love to try it, but if they won't sell it to me, I'd just as soon never hear about it ever again.

On the bright side, there are probably some great Colorado and California beers that you yanks don't get, so perhaps it evens out.

There's no way to get it shipped over there somehow? I don't actually know, but wouldn't there be beer stores that specialize in importing from out of state?

Any time there's a forum thread about beer, everybody on the East Coast rants and raves about how it's the best beer in the world. Might be, I wouldn't know. But since they only sell to 5 states, it doesn't really matter. I'd love to try it, but if they won't sell it to me, I'd just as soon never hear about it ever again.

On the bright side, there are probably some great Colorado and California beers that you yanks don't get, so perhaps it evens out.

There's no way to get it shipped over there somehow? I don't actually know, but wouldn't there be beer stores that specialize in importing from out of state?

Yuengling is in that no-man's-land between micro-brew and macro-brew...it's not so small & indie that people everywhere view it as something special, and it's not so big to be able to get massive distribution. By way of TX comparison, it seems like the same situation for Shiner Bock.

It's actually illegal to bring it here; think Smokey and the Bandit. The Yuengling folk seem to want it's distribution limited to a few states, and as such, it can't be imported outside of those states; or something like that. There is actually a Navy PX down in Galveston that occasionally brings some in, but it doesn't do me any good.

Interestingly, I did some research on it last night and most people outside of that area think it average at best. Ratebeer.com has it in the 30th percentile. Beer tends to enjoy significant regional loyalty. Shiner is very popular down here (my preferred cheap beer), but most outsiders think it's swill. The difference seems to be that nobody down here would ever say that Shiners the best beer in the world

I'm can't say Yuengling is the best beer in the world, I haven't tried enough different beers. But it's unquestionably the best beer I've tasted. Better than any Macrobrew I've had by a long shot. And better than the couple of lesser known brews I've tried.

Why we I fight:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/14/766711/-Rage-and-Sadness-made-me-do-it...

Rage and sadness made him pay someone else's expense at a business?

Its funny to me that no one helps would be doctors and nurses pay their 8 + years through school, but when they start performing medical procedures that cost a bit of coin its a major injustice that it isn't free.

Why we I fight:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/14/766711/-Rage-and-Sadness-made-me-do-it...

Rage and sadness made him pay someone else's expense at a business?

Its funny to me that no one helps would be doctors and nurses pay their 8 + years through school, but when they start performing medical procedures that cost a bit of coin its a major injustice that it isn't free.

eff that in the a

You do realize most liberals would probably support free higher education?

We, the undersigned, say no, and call for the government to assume responsibility for payment of all tuition and fees for all students enrolled at all public, post-secondary degree-awarding educational institutions.

Free higher education, then free gas, then free food, and electricity and all that stupid shit that the government will pay for with a magical fairy money machine that does not incur debt or suffer the woes of inflation.

My point is that even though you want something something does not make it practical or technically even possible, nor does it justify your motivation for changing something as massive as the US healthcare system.

We, the undersigned, say no, and call for the government to assume responsibility for payment of all tuition and fees for all students enrolled at all public, post-secondary degree-awarding educational institutions.

Free higher education, then free gas, then free food, and electricity and all that stupid shit that the government will pay for with a magical fairy money machine that does not incur debt or suffer the woes of inflation.

My point is that even though you want something something does not make it practical or technically even possible, nor does it justify your motivation for changing something as massive as the US healthcare system.

Why do you just love slippery slope fallacies? This seems to be a theme in all your objections. Free education does not lead to free food and electricity, nor anything else.

And UHC is quite possible. Seeing as how every other modern country has UHC systems, and all them are perform better and for less money than our own, I hardly see how this is not "practical or technically even possible." The argument against UHC is based solely around the confirmation bias - look up the systems in Japan, Germany, Taiwan, Switzerland. GB and Canada are the worst examples, and they're still better than what we have. Hell, you don't even need a public option, or anything directly administered by the government. Making rescission illegal and capping health care profits would go a long way. This would actually reduce the amount of money we spend on health care - and if our government spend money like it should, taxes could actually be lowered. If you're going to complain about the federal budget, it seems to be you should be upset about the part of the budget which has and is making us go bankrupt: "defense."

ANd by the way, that is definitely not the point you had in your oringal post. You were trying to point otu a hyporicsy that when doctors have to pay tons of money and go through lots of schooling, there's no one there helping them. Not only is that wrong (it's like that commentor on fox news saying he never got any help from anybody, but he went on unemployment and got money from Government), but it also ignores the desire s of the people who want UHC. People pushing for UHC also push for cheaper/free higher education.

By the way, the author is making a point about the current health care system that current right wing paranoia has taken up on: "death panels." What would a death panel be in this pipe dream of a government? A body of people deciding not to treat people becuase it would be too expensive. And the point this guy was making was that our current system won't even treat a person who obviously needs to see a doctors becuase a $40 co payment. We have death panels... private one's.

Wasnt talking about UHC, I was talking about free higher education which is bullshit and impractical.

Quote

but it also ignores the desire s of the people who want UHC. People pushing for UHC also push for cheaper/free higher education.

Thats a generalization of people who want universal health care.

It may have been a bit brash of me to say something broad like that without first reading up on free higher education.

I hate when you do this to me...its not a fallacy. The government has been continuously and more frequently intervening in the private sector recently.

And yes that is a generalizatino, but it's a pretty sound one. Who supports UHC? Liberals. Who supports free higher education? Liberals. I'll admit that I'm sure there's pelnty of exceptions, where some people want one or the other, but not both.

And it's still a slippery slope argument. The only way for it not to be a slippery slope argument is for you to show directly how UHC and free higher education leads to free food, etc. To put it differently, I'm not saying that you are wrong, I'm saying you're not giving an argument for it at all. Basing an argument solely upon a slow transgression of events, without arguments of why they would happen - and especially when the end result is absrud - is a slippery slope fallacy.

I'll assume you mean he dodged the thing about being entitled to other people's work?

In that case, why don't we have private companies ensuring cops, the military, and firefighters? If you can't afford to pay for them when they're needed, and you don't have insurance, they don't help you.

The government paying for anything that it should not be paying for, ex. higher education for millions of people, universal healthcare for millions of people, welfare for millions of people, etc is always a disaster.

Offering you a piece of historically validated economic literature that directly answers all of the questions you just posed makes me arrogant?

Damn. I wonder what that makes you.

It makes you arrogant because you're assuming my ignorance, and assuming your omniscience. You're assuming I haven't read the literature in question, and it assumes that it will contain ALL my answers.

Besides, I wasn't asking those questinos in general, I was asking about your position. You said it always "leads to disaster," but that is an extremely vauge thing to say.

And who says I haven't? You're stil assuming my ignorance, are you not?

Obviously not you because instead of just saying "no I havent/have read it" and leaving it at that, you went on about how ignorant I am.

Quote

When - at least in this discussion - have I said how ignorant you are? I never went on at all about how ignorant you are, I went on about how you are assuming my arrogance. Please, stop making things up.

I get that way when you don't understand basic and refuted fallacious arguments. :angel:

I'd say it's more foolish to think something is a fallacy, when it is not.

It's more foolish not to accept defeat. Accepting ones mistake is a virtue.

Why accept defeat, when you haven't been defeated? Cowardice is a vice. You saying over and over again that I'm wrong does not make me wrong anymore than me saying your wrong over and over again makes you wrong.

You are wrong. There's no doubt about it. You've been pointed out many times why you are wrong. It's that you find the reason you are wrong as a way to prove you are right. Doesn't work, buddy.

From your perspective. You really are just getting silly now. An argument is rather worthless when both sides can use the same argument. I could just as easily tell you that you've been pointed out many times why and how you are wrong.

I'm considering drawing up a formal proposal of "Unintelligent Design" as an explanation of life. Anyone want to help me write it?

Were you abused by a priest or something when you were younger?

Why do you ask that? To XJ and others (including me), the whole "Intelligent Design" movement is an affront on serious inquiry. Given how prolific the movement is, one (sadly) has to counter one way or the other.Ignoring it is sadly not an option.

Why do you ask that? To XJ and others (including me), the whole "Intelligent Design" movement is an affront on serious inquiry. Given how prolific the movement is, one (sadly) has to counter one way or the other.Ignoring it is sadly not an option.

Ignoring it, like you ignore anything else is an option.

Science is not an atheist only pet rock that proves whatever they believe, many men who have earned there scientific educations and backgrounds do indeed choose to believe in and support intelligent design.

So to go on that ID or religion in general is an affront to serious inquiry not only makes you sound as if you are some self appointed defender of science (aka douche), but it is simply untrue. Not just that, but for someone to use that as a reason to continuously mock something they don't like is very poor justification.

Why do you ask that? To XJ and others (including me), the whole "Intelligent Design" movement is an affront on serious inquiry. Given how prolific the movement is, one (sadly) has to counter one way or the other.Ignoring it is sadly not an option.

Ignoring it, like you ignore anything else is an option.

Science is not an atheist only pet rock that proves whatever they believe, many men who have earned there scientific educations and backgrounds do indeed choose to believe in and support intelligent design.

So to go on that ID or religion in general is an affront to serious inquiry not only makes you sound as if you are some self appointed defender of science (aka douche), but it is simply untrue. Not just that, but for someone to use that as a reason to continuously mock something they don't like is very poor justification.

Live and let live.

NG, cut it out. You've been warned about this before, and now this is two posts in a row. Final warning. Next time you step out of line, you're getting a vacation.

NG, cut it out. You've been warned about this before, and now this is two posts in a row. Final warning. Next time you step out of line, you're getting a vacation.

My bad.

Quote

...what the hell type of question is that?

There has to be some reason besides this crappy affront to scientific inquiry thing you and all the dawkinites keep trying to push. I mean really, you live with so many more retarded things in your life than religion and intelligent design yet somehow these need to be destroyed because.....they are wrong...according to you. I dont understand why you cant just turn a blind eye and like I said, live and let live.

Because "intelligent designers" won't live an let live. They're the ones affronting Science, by trying to claim "Intelligent Design" is science - by asking that it be taught in science class. Again, this does not ay anything about the truthfullness of intelligent design, it just say that it is not Science.

I have nothing wrong with the philospihcal idea of creationism being taught in schools, but not in Science class.

Intelligent design is a legitimate idea backed by many scientifically sound people and should be given the same equal attention as evolution is given. Its not biased or one sided, its simply fair. But the dawkinites seem to have this idea that it will destabilize science as a whole and reign terror on the masses.

Also maybe your definition of live and let live is a little different than mine. I am not telling, or suggesting we tell anyone how to think or behave. But by disallowing teachers or schools to teach ID in any science class you are by default telling them that what you think they believe is not science and that science is defined as this and only this. Kind of a breach of you believe what you want and I believe what I want and we wont tell each other what to believe by default is it not?

Teaching children that there are very popular alternative ideas to evolution wont do anything, the distinction here is that we are not telling them that ID is correct or incorrect which is not the case in science classes right now for evolution.

Intelligent design is a legitimate idea backed by many scientifically sound people and should be given the same equal attention as evolution is given. Its not biased or one sided, its simply fair. But the dawkinites seem to have this idea that it will destabilize science as a whole and reign terror on the masses.

Also maybe your definition of live and let live is a little different than mine. I am not telling, or suggesting we tell anyone how to think or behave. But by disallowing teachers or schools to teach ID in any science class you are by default telling them that what you think they believe is not science and that science is defined as this and only this. Kind of a breach of you believe what you want and I believe what I want and we wont tell each other what to believe by default is it not?

Teaching children that there are very popular alternative ideas to evolution wont do anything, the distinction here is that we are not telling them that ID is correct or incorrect which is not the case in science classes right now for evolution.

No dude, intelligent design isn't Science by definition. Science is very strictly defined, and one of the characteristics it requires is "falsifiability" and "reproducibility." Intelligent design can't offer anything of this sort. Intelligent designeres offer no experiments, nothing which can be reproduced, it makes no predictions, no hypothesis. There is nothing to test. This means it is not science.

Seriously, I'm not saying anything about the idea of creationism or intelligent design. I'm saying it's not science. And like I just said, I have no qualms about intelligent design being taught in schools, just not in the fucking science class.

Also, science says nothing of the sort. YOu have to completely misunderstand science in order to come to your conclusion (but you've already proven that by thinking ID is science).

I didnt know philosiphy majors had the credentials to tell other people they do not understand science. :rollin

Seeing as how philosophy created science and the scientific method, I would say philosophy has a rather good claim at defining what science is. Scientific inquiry and Philosophic inquiry are motivated by the same things. There isn't' the saying, "Philosophy is the queen of the sciences" for no reason. To make the point even further, "science" is latin for "knowledge," and a heavy and integral part of Philosophy is epistemology - or the theory of knowledge.

Besides which, this is a retarded thing to say. First of all, the first two years of college, I was a physics major (did quite well in it too). I've taken high end physics courses as early as a year ago, and would love continue doing so in Grad school. You also didn't actually address the points. It also begs the question: what's your major?

1. None of your business. Even if it was a related science it wouldn't be good enough or I wouldn't have enough experience or some other crap which you will make up on the spot if I told you and we continued this debate.

2. Like I said, don't want to have this discussion with anyone on the internet because the same thing happens over and over. Especially with dawkinites who will never acknowledge their own bias and think they are the science god.

The fact that you are even trying to justify your criticisms of a science that you don't have a degree for just reinforces what I thought about debating religion on the internet in the first place.

1. None of your business. Even if it was a related science it wouldn't be good enough or I wouldn't have enough experience or some other crap which you will make up on the spot if I told you and we continued this debate.

No I wouldn't. Your projecting becuase that's what you've done, and what you were trying to do. The problem is, according to your own logic, you can't make any of the justifications you are trying to make. You've already tried to make up some crap that I don't have enough experience (because I'm a philosophy major).

Quote

2. Like I said, don't want to have this discussion with anyone on the internet because the same thing happens over and over. Especially with dawkinites who will never acknowledge their own bias and think they are the science god.

I'm not a dawkinite. Not even close. In this field, you would have to call me a Heideggarian. But please, go on insisting that intelligent design is Science, when it's not by definition. Go read Francis Bacon, please.

Plus, like I've said numerous times, I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, it just doesn't belong in the Science class room. It would be like teaching Spanish in English class. That is simply not the subject matter.

Quote

The fact that you are even trying to justify your criticisms of a science that you don't have a degree for just reinforces what I thought about debating religion on the internet in the first place.

You're right, I don't have a degree in the "science" of Creationism/Intelligent Design because it's not a Science. Intelligent design theory does not follow the Scientific Method, and is basically forecluded from being so by it's very stance on the issue.

No I wouldn't. Your projecting becuase that's what you've done, and what you were trying to do. The problem is, according to your own logic, you can't make any of the justifications you are trying to make. You've already tried to make up some crap that I don't have enough experience (because I'm a philosophy major).

I am not projecting and it wasn't specific to you. I am saying you don't have enough experience, because you don't and not in the right field. Remember a while back when I gave you that petition (http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php) of the thousands of scientists who thought global warming was a load of bull? Remember the general response (http://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=3120.175) that you seemed to agree with? The majority of the petition was filled with scientists who were not directly involved in climate science.

Why is your case with your two years of physics any different for biology or evolution and intelligent design?

Quote

I'm not a dawkinite. Not even close. In this field, you would have to call me a Heideggarian. But please, go on insisting that intelligent design is Science, when it's not by definition. Go read Francis Bacon, please.

Once again, not specific to you. It was a general reply encapsulating the entire internet debate atmosphere.

Quote

Plus, like I've said numerous times, I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, it just doesn't belong in the Science class room. It would be like teaching Spanish in English class. That is simply not the subject matter.

Heres one of the humps. People who do have relevant degrees in the fields relating to evolution/creation debate do support ID. You cant deny they do, you cant challenge there backgrounds or degrees, and you cant dismiss what they believe. So how do you get off dismissing ID as not science without contradicting something that very clearly exists?

edit: Srsly millah...srsly.

Quote

Y'know, there's a reason that the terminal degree in a scientific degree is called a Ph.D

I cant believe the same crowd that has shot me down all these times for bringing unqualified experts to the table is now supporting scheavo as he becomes a scientist with his philosophy degree. This is exactly what I mean when I say debating on the internet. You know as well as I, thats not what it means. Maybe historically, but the meaning is very obviously not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phd) philosophy in sheavos sense.

No I wouldn't. Your projecting becuase that's what you've done, and what you were trying to do. The problem is, according to your own logic, you can't make any of the justifications you are trying to make. You've already tried to make up some crap that I don't have enough experience (because I'm a philosophy major).

I am not projecting and it wasn't specific to you. I am saying you don't have enough experience, because you don't and not in the right field. Remember a while back when I gave you that petition (http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php) of the thousands of scientists who thought global warming was a load of bull? Remember the general response (http://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=3120.175) that you seemed to agree with? The majority of the petition was filled with scientists who were not directly involved in climate science.

Why is your case with your two years of physics any different for biology or evolution and intelligent design?

Hehe. Sorry, it's funny becuase you report to evidence which proves you wrong. From that thread:

Second of all, modern scientific surveys are amazingly accurate. That, and it is simply a landslide. 82% of scientists and 97% of climatologists. Seriously, do you somehow think that this survey magically, and pretty much mathematically impossibly, surveyed simply the scientists who agree with the movement?

(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/203/climatechange.png)

97% of Climatologists, which was defined as people, "who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals n total). Of these specialists, 96.2%(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

Quote

Quote

I'm not a dawkinite. Not even close. In this field, you would have to call me a Heideggarian. But please, go on insisting that intelligent design is Science, when it's not by definition. Go read Francis Bacon, please.

Once again, not specific to you. It was a general reply encapsulating the entire internet debate atmosphere.

C'mon man, just admit you assumed I was a "dawkinite."

Quote

Quote

Plus, like I've said numerous times, I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools, it just doesn't belong in the Science class room. It would be like teaching Spanish in English class. That is simply not the subject matter.

Heres one of the humps. People who do have relevant degrees in the fields relating to evolution/creation debate do support ID. You cant deny they do, you cant challenge there backgrounds or degrees, and you cant dismiss what they believe. So how do you get off dismissing ID as not science without contradicting something that very clearly exists?

So um... why are you assuming every scientists actually performs Science? I go about calling it not Science based upon the definition of what science is. Meaning, if something doesn't follow a very exact method, meaning very exact means to an end, it is not Science. ID, and every single 'scientific' paper about ID doesn't follow these criteria, nor this definition. Also: The New Organon (http://books.google.com/books?id=MUm8Yzmq5NUC&dq=francis+bacon+the+new+organon&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=AkP81eAEi2&sig=XPR7WlzhhN9q6FFZ0Ut0_2lUddg&hl=en&ei=05qUSvikBZS2MNTJxfoH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false). That is how any science department in the country, and in the world, is going to define modern Science.

Quote

edit: Srsly millah...srsly.

Quote

Y'know, there's a reason that the terminal degree in a scientific degree is called a Ph.D

I cant believe the same crowd that has shot me down all these times for bringing unqualified experts to the table is now supporting scheavo as he becomes a scientist with his philosophy degree. This is exactly what I mean when I say debating on the internet. You know as well as I, thats not what it means. Maybe historically, but the meaning is very obviously not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phd) philosophy in sheavos sense.

I cant believe the same crowd that has shot me down all these times for bringing unqualified experts to the table is now supporting scheavo as he becomes a scientist with his philosophy degree. This is exactly what I mean when I say debating on the internet. You know as well as I, thats not what it means. Maybe historically, but the meaning is very obviously not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phd) philosophy in sheavos sense.

I'm not calling scheavo a scientist, or an expert in science. So far as I know, he lacks the technical knowledge, the experience, and the insight (nothing personal, scheavo). What he brings to the table is being well versed in logic, which is the foundation upon which science is built, and IMHO the part of science education that is most lacking in this country.

I cant believe the same crowd that has shot me down all these times for bringing unqualified experts to the table is now supporting scheavo as he becomes a scientist with his philosophy degree. This is exactly what I mean when I say debating on the internet. You know as well as I, thats not what it means. Maybe historically, but the meaning is very obviously not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phd) philosophy in sheavos sense.

I'm not calling scheavo a scientist, or an expert in science. So far as I know, he lacks the technical knowledge, the experience, and the insight (nothing personal, scheavo)[/b].What he brings to the table is being well versed in logic, which is the foundation upon which science is built, and IMHO the part of science education that is most lacking in this country.

Meh, being ignorant never bothered me so much as being irrational. It's rather easy to fix ignorance if you're rational.

It doesn't, and that's the point I was making. You are what you accuse me of being (trying to call the kettle black).

Stay with me here. But even if I am guilty of something why does it make my statement any less true of you?

It doesn't. Did I say it did? That's why I'm saying how it's untrue by pointing to different things, and pointed to an example of where I followed reason.

Quote

Quote

It doesn't take a scientists to perform science, either

My point even in the other thread was this. Why can you with your non scientific philosophy degree claim to understand a scientific topic and at the same time discredit those who have scientific degrees but not in directly related fields? If anything a scientist in an indirectly related field would have at least some required background learning on the subject while you would not.

I never discredit valid science. Ever. I discredit pseudo-Science and name it for what it is becuase of what science is. Just because something quacks like a duck, doesn't mean that it's a duck. And what is my claim to knowing what science is? Other than the definition of science, which anyone can look up, there's the fact that science itself is a creation of philosophy. The justification for Science being what it is, is a philosophical justification. As I tried to point out before, science is the scientific method. The scientific method is an epistemological theory, which means it is a philosophical treatise. Any success science has had, it has gained through this epistemological theory - a philosophical theory. Don't you think that might give philosophers first hand knowledge on what makes science science?

If I call myself a Christian, and I don't believe in God, am I a Christian?

And what you're still missing is that I'm taking the background learning to the background learning. In other words, I'm studying the logos, which makes up biology. Science without logic isn't science, and it doesn't take a scientist to point out when that logic is missing. It's also why a philosophy degree can be used as a pre-law degree.

We could use Griffins but we don't and I think that's what separates us from them.

The fact that no one has been charged with war crimes (especially Cheney and Bush) is perhaps the clearest indication to me that America is fucked.

I came to that conclusion when >50 of these cretins said it was OK for the government to spy on it's citizens. That's when this place stopped being America.

Good point. That still doesn't shock me as much as torture, though.

And wow... 1980 really seems to be a bad year for American history. Reagan became President and paved the way for 28(+) years of failed policy; and CNN launched, paving the way for an even dumber and more corporate controlled masses (and of course, Fox "News")

Well I mean the idea behind CNN, not even necessarily the crap fest which is CNN. 24 hours news is a self-destroying idea, if you ask me. It makes news too much about ratings and profit, and not about objective quality journalism. People would rather persist in their delusions, than be told the truth - so the news which aides the delusions get good ratings.

We could use Griffins but we don't and I think that's what separates us from them.

The fact that no one has been charged with war crimes (especially Cheney and Bush) is perhaps the clearest indication to me that America is fucked.

I came to that conclusion when >50 of these cretins said it was OK for the government to spy on it's citizens. That's when this place stopped being America.

Good point. That still doesn't shock me as much as torture, though.

To me, the tolerance for torture is quite predictable. You get to abuse people you think are bad, and justify it by claiming self defense. The simple minded often default to violence and they'll never understand moral integrity.

The spying was totally unexpected. Not trusting the government is one of the most basic tenets this country was founded on, and as soon as people got spooked, they rolled over hard.

A country full of vicious simpletons I expect. A country of pussies is surprising to me.

While I agree a mechanized system is necessary, it doesn't need to be moving at a speed or be as aggressive that it hurts some of the chicks unnecessarily and outright throws some of them off the conveyor belt to die on the floor.

Obviously the machine in its current form violates US animal treatment laws. I dont think any boycott is necessary. In the case that they dont change the machine or are not forced, then I suppose a boycott would be the only way.

I don't give them the same rights, I give them the right not to have their limbs crudely bruised and completely destroyed as well as the right not to be thrown from fast moving conveyor belts onto concrete floors to await the slow embrace of death. Are we on the same page here man? I know your trying to turn this into "SEE YOU LIKE THE GOVERNMENT AND YOUR BLIND" thing but this is completely different because something like this would be handled by state police on a local level.

Fuck. I was just watching the God channels (it's fun to do when you're bored) and this guy comes along and says "an unscientific theory such as evolution". It was the same guy who says that bananas are proof of God though.

It's worrying that this nonsense is allowed on TV.

Edit: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. "Even insurance companies have got it right. They call a tornado, earthquake etc. an "act of God"". Good proof.

Edit2: Now he's going around the street using the scare tactic of "If you died right now, you would probably go to hell" etc. Nice way of converting people :yeahright

6 times as many people die each year in your country because it doesn't have a public healthcare system.

Even if you're not serious, I have little doubt many people believe in statements like this, and it is for these reasons that I'm trying to segue away from politics.

I'm not really sure me spending vast amounts of time arguing to walls is worth the opportunity cost at this time in my life. (This isn't, "So long and thanks for all the fish!")

[/elitism]

What I made was a true statement. I can see why even a right-winger might be disturbed by it. Too bad all the right has are the same free-market "solutions" that allowed this statistic to become a reality.

Good, my motto is "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." It should give you some discomfort to see things that I support come to pass. Otherwise I'm not doing my job. :D

At what point do the comforted afflicted warrant arbitrary affliction?

Never, that's the point.

How can you possibly know the appointed "comfortable" aren't the previously afflicted?

Haha, good point. Basically if you are humble and not greedy, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. I'm only going after the ones who do not have values.

Thank God we have Disappear judging.

Ahem, you mean thank Me.

:metardica:

Rashid - [n] the supreme deity of the ancient Greeks, a son of Cronus and Rhea, brother of Demeter, Hades, Hera, Hestia, and Poseidon, and father of a number of gods, demigods, and mortals; the god of the heavens, identified by the Romans with Jupiter.

I believe that Barack Obama was sent as the Marxist suffering messiah for an evil movement to establish the globally controlled state -- not necessarily the Marxist reigning messiah, though he may "hope." That is, his job is to destroy free America and if necessary, go down with the ship of state.

I'm sorry, but it's in Spanish. It says that "Venezuela prohibits the transmission of Family Guy because it supports the legalization of marijuana. Chavez considers that Venezuelans have been corrupted by American Capitalistic values and they need new humanistic moral codes".

Thank God Big Brother decides what's good for you. I love how freedom reigns in Venezuela.

I'm sorry, but it's in Spanish. It says that "Venezuela prohibits the transmission of Family Guy because it supports the legalization of marijuana. Chavez considers that Venezuelans have been corrupted by American Capitalistic values and they need new humanistic moral codes".

Thank God Big Brother decides what's good for you. I love how freedom reigns in Venezuela.

Wait, don't they censor stuff all the time and throw ppl in jail for smoking pot in the mostest freedomest country in the world? I would hardly call banning a show that promotes illegal drugs "dictatorship." It sounds like common sense conservatism to me.

I'm sorry, but it's in Spanish. It says that "Venezuela prohibits the transmission of Family Guy because it supports the legalization of marijuana. Chavez considers that Venezuelans have been corrupted by American Capitalistic values and they need new humanistic moral codes".

Thank God Big Brother decides what's good for you. I love how freedom reigns in Venezuela.

Wait, don't they censor stuff all the time and throw ppl in jail for smoking pot in the mostest freedomest country in the world? I would hardly call banning a show that promotes illegal drugs "dictatorship." It sounds like common sense conservatism to me.

Like I said, Tutti frutti. One day you are socialist, one day you are a "libertarian", depending on your mood you tingle with social democracy. It's nothing coherent.

Yes it is. Why are any of those mutually exclusive to one another? Could it possibly be that - just maybe - there are commonalities between socialism and classical liberalism / libertarianism? It's also not as if socialism or liberalism give a complete answer to the question of governance.

Most importantly, notice how you just pointed to labels, and not my actual positions? (and isn't a social democratic a.. uh.. socalist?)

Like I said, Tutti frutti. One day you are socialist, one day you are a "libertarian", depending on your mood you tingle with social democracy. It's nothing coherent.

Yes it is. Why are any of those mutually exclusive to one another? Could it possibly be that - just maybe - there are commonalities between socialism and classical liberalism / libertarianism? It's also not as if socialism or liberalism give a complete answer to the question of governance.

Most importantly, notice how you just pointed to labels, and not my actual positions? (and isn't a social democratic a.. uh.. socialist?)

At the last point, yeah, but they put democratic just to make it look nicer... like German Democratic Republic. It's a charade.

And for the rest, they turn up (the terms) contradicting each other, you know? The purpose is that they don't contradict so they can work correctly.

Like I said, Tutti frutti. One day you are socialist, one day you are a "libertarian", depending on your mood you tingle with social democracy. It's nothing coherent.

Yes it is. Why are any of those mutually exclusive to one another? Could it possibly be that - just maybe - there are commonalities between socialism and classical liberalism / libertarianism? It's also not as if socialism or liberalism give a complete answer to the question of governance.

Most importantly, notice how you just pointed to labels, and not my actual positions? (and isn't a social democratic a.. uh.. socialist?)

And for the rest, they turn up (the terms) contradicting each other, you know? The purpose is that they don't contradict so they can work correctly.

When you say something is a slippery slope fallacy, you aren't making any qualitative statements about the person's conclusion. You are making a statement about their logic. As in, not the end, but the means. Your conclusion could very well come true, but that doesn't mean the argument you gave for it was rational and not fallacious.

Basically, an argument uses the slippery slope fallacy when they state that a - > b -> c -> d -> e, and e is bad, therefore we shouldn't do a. It's when you give a long trail of possible events, but which quite easily could not occur. So the reason why your "counter examples" don't matter is becuase it's irrelevant to what is fallacious about a slippery slope. A could lead to b, which could lead to, which could lead to d, which could lead to e, but there's no reason why it has to lead to e. If you start giving reasons why each one has to lead to the other, than you're not being fallacious. A good example of a slippery slope fallacy in today's world is the idea that legalizing gay marriage is somehow going to lead to legalizing bestiality and animal marriages. Could such a series of events play out? I can't say they can't, but it's also absurd to think that they will.

And if you could list one of your "counter examples," in full, I could possibly try and answer your question more fully.

My brain hurts trying to decipher his point there. And I thought I was cryptic... :|

You don't see Germany's "cultural" exclusion of Turkey from the EU as racism? Or Berlusconi repeatedly calling Obama and his wife "tanned" as racism? Is this the same Disappear I'm talking to.

As for the topic getting locked it seems to rather prove the point I made that racism is ok, if it's continental Europe. You imagine a British or American person calling an Indian American politician as "tanned" or a white politician as "untanned" perhaps and them not being held to account for it.

I think some Americans have a weirdly rosy view of Continental politics like because it's tradiitionally more statist it's some benign entity. Aside from the EU being far beyond statist and statism being highly contentious to say the least, you don't seem to realise that Europe is vociferously "racist" by the developed English-speaking world's standards. Many people there have an almost spiritual association with the land they inhabit which they consider is theirs as the original white settlers. They don't come here and try to justify it or feel the need to - many are passionate about this and believe it is worth defending on those terms.

So you often get continental European countries trying to keep out or put down the "other". Millions voted for Le Pen in France, abuse of black British footballers almost every time a game is played in Spain, Berlusconi making "gaffs" (as if somehow he couldn't help it), Germany stating that long-time NATO ally Turkey, a secular country, should be excluded from the EU on "cultural" grounds.

And as for the EU being far beyond statist, it's now come full circle to reveal what it was about all along: the domination of conitnental Europe by a united France and Germany:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6856174.ece

"Joschka Fischer, a former German Foreign Minister, said the Franco-German axis had to come into its own again whatever the fate of the Lisbon treaty. The centre of gravity of Europe can only be Paris and Berlin, he told Le Monde last weekend. Britain has decided to stay on the edge. Italy is . . . Italy. Poland has a way to come. Spain is buried in deep crisis.

The prospect of Britain electing a Eurosceptic Conservative government is said to have removed any French qualms and Mr Sarkozy has buried the differences with Ms Merkel that dogged the first 18 months of his presidency. He has appointed Germanophile officials, including Bruno Le Maire, his new German-speaking Agriculture Minister, given the task of securing a deal on Common Agriculture Policy spending. Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel have found common ground since the crisis of 2008, standing together against London and Washington over bankers pay and tax havens "

The Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty tomorrow IIRC, I hope they remember this.

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2009/9/29/1254235537236/Patients-without-medical--001.jpg)Patients without medical insurance wait for treatment in the Forum, a music arena in Inglewood, Los Angeles. The 1,500 free places were filled by 4am. Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/california-failing-state-debt)

So you don't think it's a bad sign that people come out in big numbers for these free health care events?

Name to me a product that a lot of people want that is normally expensive which wont draw a huge crowd if you announce you are giving it away for free.

Couldn't do it? I wonder why.

Except, I think the problem is in the question. Of course expensive products are goin to draw big crowds, but that's becomes in order for something to qualify has a product it has to have certain features. It also seems, to me, to be part of the problem with our health care system.

By the way, the problem isn't just that so many people show up, it's that many of them show up in terrible condition. It's not as if people aer showing up to wait all day because they have a cold. And to partialy answer your question, and show why it's biased, in other countries with universal health care, you wouldn't "draw a big crowd" if you offered free health care. The people who did show up probably woudln't be in the condition they are here, either. They have "free" health care if they need it when they first need it. Countries which have events like this are generally called "the third world."

the problem isn't just that so many people show up, it's that many of them show up in terrible condition.

This seems relative. If your talking about health care its going to be a lot of people who dont have any and are therefore less healthy. If your talking about food it will be likely those underfed. etc.

There will also be a large number of people who do not necessarily need or want what you have to give away, but are trying to take advantage of anything they can to get any benefit they can

Quote

and show why it's biased, in other countries with universal health care, you wouldn't "draw a big crowd" if you offered free health care.

Healthcare in USA needs to stop being seen as a product and start being seen as a right, like in all other civilized countries. For-profit insurance companies must be banned.

I think too much of the debate focuses on the monetary aspect and seldom do we remind ourselves that it is the morally right thing to do. If we reintroduced reform as a moral imperative I have a feeling it would give even the most unworldly, unrealistic, comfortable, middle class single white male lolertarians pause.

the problem isn't just that so many people show up, it's that many of them show up in terrible condition.

This seems relative. If your talking about health care its going to be a lot of people who dont have any and are therefore less healthy. If your talking about food it will be likely those underfed. etc.

There will also be a large number of people who do not necessarily need or want what you have to give away, but are trying to take advantage of anything they can to get any benefit they can

You don't see what's wrong with the fact that there's this many poor people? You don't think that speaks ill of our society? You seem willing to simply state the facts, and ignore what the consequences of those facts are. There's many cases of events like this in America.

And those people aren't going to wait in line all day for medical attention. Would you get up by 4am for something you don't need or want? How about taking off work, on your birthday, to take your elderly parents to the event we're talking about?

Quote

Quote

and show why it's biased, in other countries with universal health care, you wouldn't "draw a big crowd" if you offered free health care.

Again I think you grossly underestimate the appeal.

I think you're overestimating the appeal and grossly underestimating what this says about our Country and our health care system.

You don't see what's wrong with the fact that there's this many poor people? You don't think that speaks ill of our society? You seem willing to simply state the facts, and ignore what the consequences of those facts are. There's many cases of events like this in America.

Nope. Poor people will always exist as long as people exist. No different form of government or less government will fix that. Even if you gave all the poor people in the USA 20,000 bucks many of them would still walk around begging for change.

Quote

And those people aren't going to wait in line all day for medical attention. Would you get up by 4am for something you don't need or want? How about taking off work, on your birthday, to take your elderly parents to the event we're talking about?

Where are you pulling this scenario from? It is indisputable that people who don't need what is being offered will take as much as they can of whatever they may not need just in case. Are we suppose to assume every single person attending that event had a serious condition that needed tending?

That's a response to the idea that, "there will always bee poor people, therefore we can't do anything." That's an absurd notion. There will always be rape, does that mean we shouldn't do anything about it? There's also the fact that realizing there will always be poor people is a far cry from saying if they can't afford health care, then they should die. 45,000 people die each year becuase of a lack of health insurance.

Oh, and I got that scenario from story disappear linked to. And yes, you're suppose to infer that most people there had serious reasons for being there. Just start looking at similiar events across the country, listen to people were there, etc. Most of the idea behind this is to get people who really need the attention. Why else would people stay in line all night? (Are you really comparing health care to a harry potter movie?) Unless there was a flood of hypochondriacs, most people aren't going to stand in line all night to get medical care they don't need.

The Lolertarian solution is: do nothing. It's a notion pushed by comfortable single middle class males.

No that clearly shows how consistently you misconstrue the facts. Libertarians just don't want the government doing it by legislative force with our tax dollars. In fact, privately funded and managed homeless shelters and events are usually more successful by comparison anyway.

I don't see any reason to start a thread since I figure we'd all agree that it was pretty fucked up. It's a good read though so I'm throwing it out here for people to check out. Cameron Todd Willingham (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=1)

Likely innocent fellow executed on the basis of highly faulty forensic evidence. It's been in the news down here because Governor Perry recently dismissed most of an investigative panel just days before they began their public inquiry which would have been seriously scathing. Perry has steadfastly maintained that the guy was guilty and doesn't want to be called out before what will be a hotly contested primary for his re-election. The new panel probably won't reconvene until after the election.

Something that annoys me, though probably doesn't deserve it's own thread. According to the 2007 UCR, 475 kids were murdered by their parents. It's newsworthy in the town it happens in, less so at the state level, and irrelevant to the national news. That is unless it's an honor killing by a culture we don't like (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/21/arizona.iraqi.daughter.struck/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn). Any time Akhmed kills (or in this case tries to kill) his daughter because she dresses like a slut, it's front page news everywhere. Fox, I completely understand; they have a job to do. But CNN? I expect better from my liberal media. They should just stick to reporting only gang related murders and those of pretty white girls (but only if they got a good rogering first).

For anybody keeping up with the Willingham case down here in Tejas.New head of Texas Forensic Science Commission says he'll protect panel's integrity (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111109dntexforensics.2a2f7b127.html)Quite a few things really jumped out at me. Not the least of which is that they have no intention whatsoever of getting this thing moving before the March primaries. Hearing some of these guys defend the conviction on the grounds that he was a monster is rather unsettling.

I also found quite fascinating the difference between how two people view the backlog of 1000 rape kits. One is concerned about the 1000 people that might be in prison right now, and the other is concerned about the 1000 people that aren't imprisoned right now.

I'd just like to see Rumbo and Adami, that Andy spoof thread was epic, short-lived as it was.

Despite the insulting title, it wasn't meant to be a spoof. I just needed something to grab his attention. I was honestly hoping to contain his views into one thread. It seems he's the only troll who can't get in trouble, so I figured he's better off contained somehow.

I'd just like to see Rumbo and Adami, that Andy spoof thread was epic, short-lived as it was.

Despite the insulting title, it wasn't meant to be a spoof. I just needed something to grab his attention. I was honestly hoping to contain his views into one thread. It seems he's the only troll who can't get in trouble, so I figured he's better off contained somehow.

I'd just like to see Rumbo and Adami, that Andy spoof thread was epic, short-lived as it was.

Despite the insulting title, it wasn't meant to be a spoof. I just needed something to grab his attention. I was honestly hoping to contain his views into one thread. It seems he's the only troll who can't get in trouble, so I figured he's better off contained somehow.

I've since directed him to keep it to a single trhread.

I really do appreciate that. I would love to see many of the things here discussed, however when it just turns into an anti eu thread, and then everyone yelling at andy, it ruins it.

I'd just like to see Rumbo and Adami, that Andy spoof thread was epic, short-lived as it was.

Despite the insulting title, it wasn't meant to be a spoof. I just needed something to grab his attention. I was honestly hoping to contain his views into one thread. It seems he's the only troll who can't get in trouble, so I figured he's better off contained somehow.

I've since directed him to keep it to a single trhread.

I really do appreciate that. I would love to see many of the things here discussed, however when it just turns into an anti eu thread, and then everyone yelling at andy, it ruins it.

Unfortunately, that happens with the topic du jour around here frequently, usually having nothing to do with any one poster. Global warming, Libertarianism, free market, biblical literalism, the EU. I attempt to keep things somewhat on the rails, but it can be like a bit challenging...

Her position is tactically quite sound. She's a staunch supporter of the death penalty, as is required to be elected governor, so she's focusing her attack on Perry's politicalization of the process which she claims is providing ammunition to the bleeding hearts. She's avoiding the question of whether or not CTW was guilty, but using the issue to paint Perry as soft on capital punishment.

Quote

“As hard as Rick Perry’s office and his campaign may try to divert from the issue, this is not about one man or one case. The issue is Rick Perry’s heavy-handed politicization of a process and Commission established by the legislature to provide critical oversight. First, Rick Perry delayed the formation of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, then he tried to ensure it didn’t have funding and when all else failed, he fired everyone he could. The only thing Rick Perry’s actions have accomplished is giving liberals an argument to discredit the death penalty. Kay Bailey Hutchison is a steadfast supporter of the death penalty, voted to reinstate it when she served in the Texas House and believes we should never do anything to create a cloud of controversy over it with actions that look like a cover-up.”

Mating season is for animals which don't construct shelters, and thus need to have their youngs grow to appropriate maturity before the next winter comes. Given we started building shelters at some point, we could have offspring year-round, and obviously the mammal/human that produces more "throughput" quickly replaces the genetic makeup of the whole population.

rumborak

There was a long period of time where man had shelter, but hadn't figured out cultivation or domestication. Being hunter/gatherers, you'd think we would have some kind of innate schedule hardwired into us to breed when there was an abundance of chow.

Wouldn't be useful though, unless our bodies could predict 9 months in advance when we would have lots of food.

Our brains certainly can predict it, and mating seasons are hormonal.

I could understand that in the case of an agricultural society, but for a hunter/gatherer society?

I found this on the subject:

Quote

Archaeologists have determined that by 2,500 years BP (before present), a subsistence-settlement strategy called the winter village pattern was widely established among hunter-gatherers on the Columbia River Plateau in northwest North America. In this strategy, hunter-gatherers dispersed into smaller groups during spring through fall as they collected food resources in bulk quantities for winter consumption. During winter, they aggregated in larger groups at permanent villages situated in low-elevation riverine environments, where they subsisted on stored food supplies augmented by hunting and fishing.

While food might not have been as big a problem as I had though, they were still very sensible about the weather and the seasons. As such, you'd think they might have developed a sense for when the best time to get knocked up would be. While food is still a factor, there are other factors as well, not the least of which is "it's fucking cold!"

Hey. First post here. I am just really bored and looking to do stupid shit that I have not done in the first couple of months here on DTF, so...yeah...here I am. Posting in the P&R chat thread! :metal :metal :metal

Huh? No one knows what to do about global warming? That's just simply not true. The solution to global warming is quite simple: stop polluting the environment with greenhouse gases. If we're causing warming, the affects will peter out.

This is my main issue with those who want to make drastic policy issues that will affect everyone. Let me use a car analogy to explain what I mean:

If I am driving my car with a lead foot, I will be wearing out the engine faster. There is a solid cause and effect relationship here, and something can be done about it. Hence why I agree with TV that we should focus on things we are certain about.

On the other hand, if I'm at the shop for a routine repair, and am told that I need to spend thousands of dollars to fix a problem they "think" is caused by my driving habits, and if so, the repair "might" fix it, I would laugh and say "no thanks, I need a little more convincing".

Your analogy makes no sense on many levels.

For one, if the problem is caused by yoru driving habits, why is there any fix to be paid for? You're making the alternative irrational to support your conclusion. Global warming would be much more analogous to the first example, where the solution is quick and simple: change habits.

Secondly, if you took your car to every single mechanic in your area, and had 97% of them suggest the fix, would you still doubt that it's a problem?

Thirdly, green technology is a money saver. So for the example to work, it would have to be more like, "I am told that if I spend a thousand dollars now, I'll save three thousand over the course of several years - and I may or may not solve the problem. Meanwhile, while the fix may not fix this exact problem, it will fix other problems that are wrong with your car." I can't imagine why you would turn down this offer, even if you somehow knew their fix to be a "fix." To put this in terms of global warming, and reducing CO2 emissions, greener technology will save us money, and pollute less. Car emissions are still bad, global warming or not.

Huh? No one knows what to do about global warming? That's just simply not true. The solution to global warming is quite simple: stop polluting the environment with greenhouse gases. If we're causing warming, the affects will peter out.

This is my main issue with those who want to make drastic policy issues that will affect everyone. Let me use a car analogy to explain what I mean:

If I am driving my car with a lead foot, I will be wearing out the engine faster. There is a solid cause and effect relationship here, and something can be done about it. Hence why I agree with TV that we should focus on things we are certain about.

On the other hand, if I'm at the shop for a routine repair, and am told that I need to spend thousands of dollars to fix a problem they "think" is caused by my driving habits, and if so, the repair "might" fix it, I would laugh and say "no thanks, I need a little more convincing".

Your analogy makes no sense on many levels.

For one, if the problem is caused by yoru driving habits, why is there any fix to be paid for? You're making the alternative irrational to support your conclusion. Global warming would be much more analogous to the first example, where the solution is quick and simple: change habits.

Secondly, if you took your car to every single mechanic in your area, and had 97% of them suggest the fix, would you still doubt that it's a problem?

Thirdly, green technology is a money saver. So for the example to work, it would have to be more like, "I am told that if I spend a thousand dollars now, I'll save three thousand over the course of several years - and I may or may not solve the problem. Meanwhile, while the fix may not fix this exact problem, it will fix other problems that are wrong with your car." I can't imagine why you would turn down this offer, even if you somehow knew their fix to be a "fix." To put this in terms of global warming, and reducing CO2 emissions, greener technology will save us money, and pollute less. Car emissions are still bad, global warming or not.

I admit, my analogy isn't an exact carryover. Before I clarify my position, let me be clear on where I stand with green technology. I do not have anything against green technology and improving our environment. I can't wait to see what new technology will be available for energy sources, whether it be improved alternative sources we know now, or completely new technologies we haven't seen yet.

Whether or not climate change can be controlled by humans, we will eventually move to alternative forms of energy. Fossil fuels won't last forever. The ingenuity of the human mind wants to improve the efficiency and decrease the cost of providing energy.

Back to my original argument, I don't believe there is conclusive evidence that we are the primary cause of climate change (which you implied in your post). The only concrete evidence we have is the temperature record, which we all agree has risen, but is now remained steady for the past decade or so. The only evidence proclaiming doom and gloom is provided by computer models. I don't mean that to discount the usefulness of computer modeling, especially since I'm not fully knowledgeable on them, but I cannot put more trust in a computer model predicting the global climate 10 to 90 years in the future, than I would a computer model predicting the local 5 day forecast.

Like I said before, I think green technology is great, and we are moving in that direction, but it's not happening as fast as you would like. I personally, don't see the need to rush.

Quote

So, with your argument, when an obese person goes to the doctor and gets told to change his lifestyle since he otherwise will have a premature death 10 years down the road, the correct answer is "no thanks, that is too vague and too far into the future, I need a little more convincing."?

rumborak

Like I said above, my analogy wasn't the greatest, but it will still fit here I suppose. The difference is that the doctor has seen concrete evidence from the complete life of thousands of obese patients, and that evidence always concludes that an obese patient will die prematurely. The doctor may not be able to predict exactly how long of course, but there is solid evidence (not modeling) that this will occur.

Back to my original argument, I don't believe there is conclusive evidence that we are the primary cause of climate change (which you implied in your post). The only concrete evidence we have is the temperature record, which we all agree has risen, but is now remained steady for the past decade or so. The only evidence proclaiming doom and gloom is provided by computer models. I don't mean that to discount the usefulness of computer modeling, especially since I'm not fully knowledgeable on them, but I cannot put more trust in a computer model predicting the global climate 10 to 90 years in the future, than I would a computer model predicting the local 5 day forecast.

Ugh. So, you just discredited the whole scientific foundation of mathematical modeling. No offense, but just because you don't know how it works doesn't mean it's not correct.

Frankly, the more I read the anti-GW arguments here (by WW, Andy, and you), the more I have the impression it's heavily based on the "black magic" impression some of you have of predictive modeling. That is, you don't know how it works, and thus it must be implicitly distrusted.

Huh? No one knows what to do about global warming? That's just simply not true. The solution to global warming is quite simple: stop polluting the environment with greenhouse gases. If we're causing warming, the affects will peter out.

This is my main issue with those who want to make drastic policy issues that will affect everyone. Let me use a car analogy to explain what I mean:

If I am driving my car with a lead foot, I will be wearing out the engine faster. There is a solid cause and effect relationship here, and something can be done about it. Hence why I agree with TV that we should focus on things we are certain about.

On the other hand, if I'm at the shop for a routine repair, and am told that I need to spend thousands of dollars to fix a problem they "think" is caused by my driving habits, and if so, the repair "might" fix it, I would laugh and say "no thanks, I need a little more convincing".

Your analogy makes no sense on many levels.

For one, if the problem is caused by yoru driving habits, why is there any fix to be paid for? You're making the alternative irrational to support your conclusion. Global warming would be much more analogous to the first example, where the solution is quick and simple: change habits.

Secondly, if you took your car to every single mechanic in your area, and had 97% of them suggest the fix, would you still doubt that it's a problem?

Thirdly, green technology is a money saver. So for the example to work, it would have to be more like, "I am told that if I spend a thousand dollars now, I'll save three thousand over the course of several years - and I may or may not solve the problem. Meanwhile, while the fix may not fix this exact problem, it will fix other problems that are wrong with your car." I can't imagine why you would turn down this offer, even if you somehow knew their fix to be a "fix." To put this in terms of global warming, and reducing CO2 emissions, greener technology will save us money, and pollute less. Car emissions are still bad, global warming or not.

I admit, my analogy isn't an exact carryover. Before I clarify my position, let me be clear on where I stand with green technology. I do not have anything against green technology and improving our environment. I can't wait to see what new technology will be available for energy sources, whether it be improved alternative sources we know now, or completely new technologies we haven't seen yet.

Whether or not climate change can be controlled by humans, we will eventually move to alternative forms of energy. Fossil fuels won't last forever. The ingenuity of the human mind wants to improve the efficiency and decrease the cost of providing energy.

Back to my original argument, I don't believe there is conclusive evidence that we are the primary cause of climate change (which you implied in your post). The only concrete evidence we have is the temperature record, which we all agree has risen, but is now remained steady for the past decade or so. The only evidence proclaiming doom and gloom is provided by computer models. I don't mean that to discount the usefulness of computer modeling, especially since I'm not fully knowledgeable on them, but I cannot put more trust in a computer model predicting the global climate 10 to 90 years in the future, than I would a computer model predicting the local 5 day forecast.

I think warming depends upon how you want to look at it.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

Quote

Geneva, 8 December 2009 (WMO) – The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.44°C ± 0.11°C (0.79°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment.

It seems that when people say there has been a recent lack of warming, they mean that the highs have not gotten higher. But the average temperatures have still risen globally.

Back to my original argument, I don't believe there is conclusive evidence that we are the primary cause of climate change (which you implied in your post). The only concrete evidence we have is the temperature record, which we all agree has risen, but is now remained steady for the past decade or so. The only evidence proclaiming doom and gloom is provided by computer models. I don't mean that to discount the usefulness of computer modeling, especially since I'm not fully knowledgeable on them, but I cannot put more trust in a computer model predicting the global climate 10 to 90 years in the future, than I would a computer model predicting the local 5 day forecast.

Ugh. So, you just discredited the whole scientific foundation of mathematical modeling. No offense, but just because you don't know how it works doesn't mean it's not correct.

Correct? What does that mean? Of course a computer program may well be "correct" but that has very little to do with whether the current state of human (let alone the programmer's) knowledge reflects reality.

Quote

Frankly, the more I read the anti-GW arguments here (by WW, Andy, and you), the more I have the impression it's heavily based on the "black magic" impression some of you have of predictive modeling. That is, you don't know how it works, and thus it must be implicitly distrusted.

rumborak

First, the phrase "anti GW arguments" amazes me. How anybody would think that such arguments would be a welcome thing per se which worries me about your motives. The above poster referred to the notorious inaccuracy of weather forecasts, extrapolate that to a model which is being used as a premise for colossal statism internationally and it is perfectly rational that anybody would be alarmed and concerned in my view.

This is what has happened with the IPCC in the past, they select the data presented to them by scientists. This is the danger of all powerful supranational bodies like the UN or EU with weak or no accountability.

This is what has happened with the IPCC in the past, they select the data presented to them by scientists. This is the danger of all powerful supranational bodies like the UN or EU with weak or no accountability.

This is what has happened with the IPCC in the past, they select the data presented to them by scientists. This is the danger of all powerful supranational bodies like the UN or EU with weak or no accountability.

Andy, while the acting on the predictions of the models is subjective, the selection of the best model is not. That is the very power of the modeling process, that you're developing the model on a certain set of data, and validate it on a different one. And, have it validated by different people who are competing with each other.Unless you subscribe to one massive conspiracy theory, where opposing teams still "collude" and only run the opposing teams' models against data that will confirm that team's model, it simply doesn't sound reasonable that this is happening.

This is what has happened with the IPCC in the past, they select the data presented to them by scientists. This is the danger of all powerful supranational bodies like the UN or EU with weak or no accountability.

Andy, while the acting on the predictions of the models is subjective, the selection of the best model is not. That is the very power of the modeling process, that you're developing the model on a certain set of data, and validate it on a different one. And, have it validated by different people who are competing with each other.Unless you subscribe to one massive conspiracy theory, where opposing teams still "collude" and only run the opposing teams' models against data that will confirm that team's model, it simply doesn't sound reasonable that this is happening.

rumborak

CRU scientists were colluding, it's in the climategate emails and the selection of the "best" model is of course subjective.

Inclined Plane: A simple machine consisting of a flat surface whose topmost point is higher than its bottommost point, this is yet another example of mankind's propensity for "inventing" things they just found lying around.

Telephone: This groundbreaking communication device allowed people a more dramatic way to end conversations with subordinates or lovers, and also played a key role in Martin Scorcese's film The Departed.

Printing Press: The mass production of printed matter was an instant hit with readers everywhere, who at the time numbered nearly 1,000 and were spread out over some 57.4 million square miles.

Easy Cheese: A pioneering aerosol-powered food- delivery system that made it possible for people to discharge high-velocity streams of cheese directly into their mouths, usually from a prone or inverted position.

God: This multipurpose tool has allowed billions to soothe their mortal fears while easily excusing a wide variety of unconscionable actions such as war and homophobia.

Gatling Gun: Capable of firing 200 rounds a minute, this powerful weapon was a vast improvement over its less lethal predecessor, the Gatling Baton.

You'll notice the comci isn't solely about climate change. The most expensive one I see on there is livable cities, which would be pretty costly.

As for the rest of it, it's pretty much a straw man because I probably won't agree on what needs to be done to address climate change. I'd also have questions for how he calculates the economic value. Does it take into account long-term boons? Does it take into account side-affects and other benefits of the solution(s)?

The video also points out how cheap some of the problems would be to solve.

The Copenhagen Consensus 2008 ranked the proposals for cost benefit as follows:

Quote

As you can see, global warming doesn’t come in until proposal number fourteen. If I put on my analyst cap, this means that thirteen other issues would produce greater benefits to more people if money was allocated to it. Yet the United States is proposing a Cap and Trade bill to curb carbon emissions during a down, vulnerable economy. The carbon credits, or carbon indulgences as coined on this website, will hurt business during a time when the unemployment rate is in the double digits. (3)

Most of those problems you point to can be done quite cheaply as compared to global warming. Meaning, there's no reason we can't do multiple things at once - the idea that we can't combat global warming because there are other good things to do is fallacious. The video you linked to before gave the monetary value needed, but completely ignored how cheap they were.

And again, it also doesn't address how many of these issues can be combated together. For example, giving AFricans and poor countries solar, wind and other green energy would be a great boon to their economy - which would lead to better education, less disease and malnutrition.

You seem to misunderstand, why would multitasking all of a sudden make any of low carbon technologies cheaper? All you are talking about is allocating more toward low carbon tech and less toward what is actually cost effective. The point is that outright low carbon technologies are expensive and should not be funded in comparison to actual problems that are plaguing people in the millions that we could more efficiently allocate money we are already spending.

To answer your suggestion. Solar power as an example is still incredibly expensive and the benefits are commonly overstated (http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-trends/solar-is-getting-more-expensive-not-cheaper/). To give an entire country or even small portions of it power via solar panels that would be needed to have even the smallest economic benefit would be outrageously expensive. The situation is the same with other green technologies like wind and hydro power. They cannot be efficiently and cheaply produced en mass in the number needed, and they cannot reliably produce the power needed to sustain change.

Sorry, but it's untrue that solar power is STILL expensive and inefficient. That article is from early 2008, making is technologically out of date and inaccurate. Same goes for wind power, which has been a viable alternative for years now. These technologies pay for themselves in a matter of years, and after that save you money.

And hydro power is a different issue completely, and if you are talking about damns, is counter productive. Good thing we can get it done with solar and wind, though.

You're also avoiding the fact that those other problems are cheap to address on their own. I"m not suggesting we ignore them, I"m suggesting we target them at the same time. Maybe this weakens the funding for global warming a little, but $18 billion is simply not that much money in today's economy - especially globally.

I think you need to read up a little more on all of those technologies before we continue this discussion. None of them are cheap enough to mass produce and provide more or equal power to that of fossil fuels.

Where are you getting your numbers from where you can say that problems 1-13 are cheap to solve?

"Cheap" is a relative term. Could I afford them? No. Can the countries afford them? No. Can the US and the modern world afford them? Yes. And I got that information from Bjorn Lomburg. He made a point about how cheap some of the solutions would be, notably the ones concerning disease and malnutrition. But those issues can be combated by improving a nations economy as well.

Also, I'm not premising my argument on the idea that solar or wind power is on par with fossil fuel. Don't need that, though wind power has been on par with fossil fuels for a while now, and solar is quickly approaching.

Over the last two years, coal- and natural gas-fueled power prices have risen more than 40%, nuclear power prices more than 70%. Wind power prices, meanwhile, have risen a relatively paltry 13%.

As a result, wind power is now cheaper than gas or nuclear. Conventional (dirtiest) coal's small price advantage—about eight-tenths of a cent per kilowatt-hour—will soon be erased by regional and/or federal regulations on climate-polluting greenhouse-gas emissions.

I think YOU need to read up a little more on these technologies. You're 5 years in the past, not the present.

I don't know if this contributes to this discussion (mainly because I'm too tired and lazy to read it) but 22% of UK's energy now comes from renewable sources, which is a 9% increase on 2007 (saw this on the BBC news tonight).

I could find articles from random websites that say farts could fuel the western hemispheres power needs. It doesn't make it true, and it was one of the criticisms that the the author in the article I linked to had. Solar systems as of 2009 cost $2-9 (http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm) per watt. maybe in 2013 you could find some way to pay for it. But even then, unless you were to allocate much more than the united states is willing as an example you would be left off with little to no economic and climate benefit.

Not just that, but the above article doesnt say anything for the actual output of an average solar system on homes now which you seem to be seriously overstating. They produces less than half of the power needed for an average home, and little to none during winter or dark months.

As interesting as wind power is, deploying it on a large scale would cost way too much money and again not be ultimately reliable. Look at the UK, they are thinking of switching (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-500893/Wind-turbines-fuel-homes-2020.html) the entire country to wind power, but even by their estimates it would cost billions and not be ready until 2020

Quote

Wind turbines have proved to be controversial onshore and offshore. On land there have been complaints that they are a blot on some of Britain's best loved, and most dramatic, landscapes, while at sea there have been concerns about their impact on shipping, fishing and birds. The Government's plans would mean a turbine for every half mile of coast.

The point is regardless of where you stand on the issue of renewable vs fossil, you cannot correctly say that switching an entire country over to the current renewable resources we have now would produce anywhere near enough power or be cost effective.

I could find articles from random websites that say farts could fuel the western hemispheres power needs. It doesn't make it true, and it was one of the criticisms that the the author in the article I linked to had. Solar systems as of 2009 cost $2-9 (http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm) per watt. maybe in 2013 you could find some way to pay for it. But even then, unless you were to allocate much more than the united states is willing as an example you would be left off with little to no economic and climate benefit.

LOL! You attack my link for being some random website, and then insert your own random website as a counterpoint! Also, completely irrelevant because it ignores the facts on the ground the solar power is rapidly become more efficient, cheaper and viable. Which the solarbuzz site even states:

Quote

We have reached the final survey of 2009. By any standards, this has been a momentus year in the long history of the solar photovoltaic industry. Never have there been such dramatic moves in pricing in a single 12 month period.

Quote

Not just that, but the above article doesnt say anything for the actual output of an average solar system on homes now which you seem to be seriously overstating. They produces less than half of the power needed for an average home, and little to none during winter or dark months.

Good thing I"m not putting all my marbles in solar power, now is it? And seeing as how I haven't made any comments on the actual output of current systems, I can't imagine how I have overstated them.

As interesting as wind power is, deploying it on a large scale would cost way too much money and again not be ultimately reliable. Look at the UK, they are thinking of switching (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-500893/Wind-turbines-fuel-homes-2020.html) the entire country to wind power, but even by their estimates it would cost billions and not be ready until 2020

Quote

Wind turbines have proved to be controversial onshore and offshore. On land there have been complaints that they are a blot on some of Britain's best loved, and most dramatic, landscapes, while at sea there have been concerns about their impact on shipping, fishing and birds. The Government's plans would mean a turbine for every half mile of coast.

The point is regardless of where you stand on the issue of renewable vs fossil, you cannot correctly say that switching an entire country over to the current renewable resources we have now would produce anywhere near enough power or be cost effective.

Look up the new wind turbine designs. This last year saw numerous new designs that are not only more efficient, but take up less space, are aesthetically pleasing and don't have large propellers.

@Nigerius Rex: I don't think anyone is suggesting moving straight over to renewable sources but to make a gradual change. The UK's original target was to have a third of our energy come from renewable sources by 2012 (I think) but, at this rate, they think we'll be relying on more than that.

LOL! You attack my link for being some random website, and then insert your own random website as a counterpoint! Also, completely irrelevant because it ignores the facts on the ground the solar power is rapidly become more efficient, cheaper and viable. Which the solarbuzz site even states:

No, I am stating something and then saying that an author not affiliated with some random news website agrees with me that news website commonly lie or mislead in order to make it look like the next big break is happening tomorrow. In fact, the author is writing from a solar hobbyist site which if anything gives them reason to always shed praise (http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-trends/read-the-leaked-transcript-of-the-uuws-climate-skeptics-meeting/) for solar power. Can you buy solar panels for $1/watt? Yes, from some companies. Can you mass produce solar cells for $1/watt and then install them and produce enough power to outweigh the use and effects of fossil fuels? No.

You are getting yourself lost in the good but not good enough news. Prices have fallen since the increase in interest in solar power, but although interest has risen substantially it has not risen enough to lower prices to a number low enough to enable mass distribution.

Quote

Good thing I"m not putting all my marbles in solar power, now is it? And seeing as how I haven't made any comments on the actual output of current systems, I can't imagine how I have overstated them.

I basically said solar power is not ready, but you countered by saying its becoming cheaper every year. I then say that even though its becoming cheaper, its not cheap enough and still cannot makeup enough power to be considered a viable alternative. If its not a viable alternative regardless of cost, then it cannot be used to replace fossil fuels globally and we are back at square one until it becomes cheap enough and efficient enough to mass produce and distribute.

Quote

Look up the new wind turbine designs. This last year saw numerous new designs that are not only more efficient, but take up less space, are aesthetically pleasing and don't have large propellers.

Thats great but irrelevant. Something being smaller, smoother, or more aesthetically pleasing don't say much for their ecological effects. The AWEA is still doing research to figure out exactly how the wind turbines will affect ocean life. Despite that, the larger wind turbines that will be placed out to see will be much larger than those on land and during construction and maintenance may do some harm.

Quote

Offshore turbine designs now under development will have larger rotors—at the moment, the largest has a 110-meter rotor diameter—because it is easier to transport large rotor blades by ship than by land.

Small wind turbines intended for residential or small business use are much smaller. Most have rotor diameters of 8 meters or less and would be mounted on towers of 40 meters in height or less.

I am not trying to discredit renewable energy, I hope it develops rapidly soon so we can start using en mass. The point is regardless of that desire, it likely will not happen for many years.

The AWEA is still doing research to figure out exactly how the wind turbines will affect ocean life. Despite that, the larger wind turbines that will be placed out to see will be much larger than those on land and during construction and maintenance may do some harm.

I suppose all those oil rigs are much more aesthetically pleasing and don't damage the environment at all then?

LOL! You attack my link for being some random website, and then insert your own random website as a counterpoint! Also, completely irrelevant because it ignores the facts on the ground the solar power is rapidly become more efficient, cheaper and viable. Which the solarbuzz site even states:

No, I am stating something and then saying that an author not affiliated with some random news website agrees with me that news website commonly lie or mislead in order to make it look like the next big break is happening tomorrow. In fact, the author is writing from a solar hobbyist site which if anything gives them reason to always shed praise (http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-trends/read-the-leaked-transcript-of-the-uuws-climate-skeptics-meeting/) for solar power. Can you buy solar panels for $1/watt? Yes, from some companies. Can you mass produce solar cells for $1/watt and then install them and produce enough power to outweigh the use and effects of fossil fuels? No.

You are getting yourself lost in the good but not good enough news. Prices have fallen since the increase in interest in solar power, but although interest has risen substantially it has not risen enough to lower prices to a number low enough to enable mass distribution.

So, you admit if interest were high enough, the prices would fall and it would enable mass distribution? Well then, I guess I had better continue to try and raise interests in solar power! I had also better support public subsidization, because that will also help mass-production and lower prices.

Quote

Quote

Good thing I"m not putting all my marbles in solar power, now is it? And seeing as how I haven't made any comments on the actual output of current systems, I can't imagine how I have overstated them.

I basically said solar power is not ready, but you countered by saying its becoming cheaper every year. I then say that even though its becoming cheaper, its not cheap enough and still cannot makeup enough power to be considered a viable alternative. If its not a viable alternative regardless of cost, then it cannot be used to replace fossil fuels globally and we are back at square one until it becomes cheap enough and efficient enough to mass produce and distribute.

But it is ready, just not for your straw man usage. People in northern climates are obviously going to have to find other sources of power, but I think the major thing you're doing is assuming I'm trying to switch our energy to one specific supply. I want to diversify our energy supply, using mostly green energy: Hydrogen, solar, wind, geo-thermal, biomass, algae-conversion (really, solar power), osmotic, hydro, nuclear, ethanol, natural gas - and yes, even fossil fuels where necessary. I know I haven't been overly clear about that, but I have never said anything to the contrary.

So is it ready for everyone to use [/i]everywhere[/i]? No. Doesn't need to be. But remember, one of the usages of solar I brought up would be for developing nations, which have a much much smaller electrical demand than developed nations.

It's also untrue that solar power can't fully supply a house's energy needs. Many people with solar panels sell power back to the grid because they create more than they use.

Quote

Quote

Look up the new wind turbine designs. This last year saw numerous new designs that are not only more efficient, but take up less space, are aesthetically pleasing and don't have large propellers.

Thats great but irrelevant. Something being smaller, smoother, or more aesthetically pleasing don't say much for their ecological effects. The AWEA is still doing research to figure out exactly how the wind turbines will affect ocean life. Despite that, the larger wind turbines that will be placed out to see will be much larger than those on land and during construction and maintenance may do some harm. j

It's hardly irrelevant. One of the major problems cited with traditional turbines is their affect on birds. Smaller turbines, with no blades, gets rid of this problem. Either way, who says this has to be put out at sea? It also gives wind power even greater efficiency, making large wind farms off shore less of a requirement. Ignoring all that, there is no requirement that such farms be built to begin with, and it still leaves plenty of room for wind energy to be a viable option for people.

One especially promising design: http://www.mariahpower.com/

Quote

Quote

Offshore turbine designs now under development will have larger rotors—at the moment, the largest has a 110-meter rotor diameter—because it is easier to transport large rotor blades by ship than by land.

Small wind turbines intended for residential or small business use are much smaller. Most have rotor diameters of 8 meters or less and would be mounted on towers of 40 meters in height or less.

So after I point out that such rotors are no longer required, you bring up that rotors present problems?

And Merry Christmas. On a personal note, I hope I keep most of the discussion idealistic, and not personal

constitutionally thats one of the few legitimate duties of the government. So I am fine with a standing military for homeland security, but not what we have now. Do I care much about private militaries or mercenaries? Not really. Also pinkertons ftw.

Right but for example if I asked you a question, and then you answered, and then someone else chimed in "Yes but only in your own opinion" then what was the point of the third response. Obviously according to my interpretation I think something. Am I just overthinking this?

Its mostly summed up in Article 1 Section 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8):

Quote

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I guess you could say I was pointing out that doesn't answer the question. I would answer the same way, but we have different view points on just what the Government can do. Article I, Section 8 is rather vague and can be used to justify many positions.

And what of local and state government? What are their responsibilities?

Its mostly summed up in Article 1 Section 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8):

Quote

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Its mostly summed up in Article 1 Section 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8):

Quote

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

What do you define as general welfare?

Based upon an argument I had with him, "general welfare" has nothing to do with "general" or "welfare," as defined by a dictionary and etymology.

Anything that is directly connected to or supports the enumerated powers.

Quote

And what of local and state government? What are their responsibilities?

No more responsibilities than the federal government. I think defense, taxes, and general welfare still apply though.

Define responsibilities, are you trying to get me to or address that they have should duties to the people like providing healthcare and paying for higher education?

So what do you mean by "general welfare"? You didn't really answer the question... you said anything which pertains to one of the enumerated powers, but promoting the general welfare is an enumerated power.

It is the comfort granted when the enumerated powers are being used and enforced efficiently. For example, knowing you are safe within the nation because of a well funded and equipped military would constitute proper welfare whereas having a bankrupt military would cause panic.

It is not every facet of human culture and health that needs to be provided for to function, healthcare as an example.

It is the comfort granted when the enumerated powers are being used and enforced efficiently. For example, knowing you are safe within the nation because of a well funded and equipped military would constitute proper welfare whereas having a bankrupt military would cause panic.

It is not every facet of human culture and health that needs to be provided for to function, healthcare as an example.

But why include in the doctrine specifically the guidance and the power to "provide for the...general welfare," if it's a result of the other enumerated powers?

And would not a unhealthy nation cause poor general welfare? It's true by definition. You do not fare well when you are sick.

Having a list of enumerated powers shoots that argument out of the sky and also historically makes no sense. I should also bring up again that general welfare is merely part of an introduction followed by the list of actual enumerated powers. Why be painfully specific about what legislation could and could not do if you were going to grant them the ability to do what is necessary to promote whatever we define as "general welfare" at the time? It just doesn't make any sense. The founding fathers knew welfare, healthcare, everything that we are now funding with tax dollars would inevitably lead to a bigger and more unstable government. Exactly like the one they fought a revolution against.

Heres a question, health was as much of a concern then as it is now if not more so. Why was a government funded healthcare system not implemented then? Why weren't all of these government programs we have now that address larger issues then not implemented? It seems like not until the early/mid 1900s did everything get all fucked up and government funded.

Having a list of enumerated powers shoots that argument out of the sky and also historically makes no sense. I should also bring up again that general welfare is merely part of an introduction followed by the list of actual enumerated powers. Why be painfully specific about what legislation could and could not do if you were going to grant them the ability to do what is necessary to promote whatever we define as "general welfare" at the time? It just doesn't make any sense. The founding fathers knew welfare, healthcare, everything that we are now funding with tax dollars would inevitably lead to a bigger and more unstable government. Exactly like the one they fought a revolution against.

But it makes perfect sense! I'm glad the founding fathers had enough foresight to realize they didn't have enough foresight - they knew circumstances would occur and proposals would arrive which they had not though of. They had to allow for such flexibility, or they would have doomed the government to complete rigidity.

And you're just wrong in saying that it's merely part of an introduction. It's in section 8, titled the powers of congress, and this is the first list of powers given. "Congress shall have the power to... provide for the ... general Welfare."

Quote

Heres a question, health was as much of a concern then as it is now if not more so. Why was a government funded healthcare system not implemented then? Why weren't all of these government programs we have now that address larger issues then not implemented? It seems like not until the early/mid 1900s did everything get all fucked up and government funded.

That's a gross analogy. You completely ignore a myriad of other circumstances, all of them vastly more important, than the theory that government funded health care could not and would not work, and would just function as a drain on society. You also fallacious conclude a conclude the lack of it's implementation was for a reason, and not just circumstances or history.

What they knew is that by listing enumerated powers they would discourage or eliminate the idea that a single sentence would disregard the entire document and its meaning. Never once during the constitutional convention or any of its preceding was the idea put forth that the government needed to fix societies every woe. They set forth a list of things the government needed to be able to do to promote peace and prosperity and protect itself. What other proof do you need than that they had just fought for independence from a government that was aggressive with taxes and too large and demanding? Kind of like what our government is becoming.

Lol. If anything, we're not taxing people enough - we have that huge deficit you like to point out. Just what constitutes the necessary taxation is entirely relative to the circumstances. Who the hell wages a war and doesn't fund it? (Well.. Bush, but that just shows how horrible of a president he was). Taxation has been on a steady decline since the 1950's, not up.

Same goes for health care. I also severely doubt that Founding Father's had any conception of the Modern World, especially the last 100 years. To assume they wouldn't assent to providing for health care with the modern worlds availability of education, doctors, hospitals and knowledge is baseless. It was a much different world in 1787. But the founding father's not only left us a list of specific powers, but a desire on how to use those powers. One of those is promoting the general Welfare of the United States, as well as the necessary powers to do so.

Insert QuoteLol. If anything, we're not taxing people enough - we have that huge deficit you like to point out. Just what constitutes the necessary taxation is entirely relative to the circumstances.

That seems to be the problem. The government should not be this giant morphing entity that can consume resources depending on how large it is. It should have a set number of power and duties (constitution) and need to tax only to fund those needs. As Bosk mentioned in the thread about healthcare, part of the reason we have such a huge deficit is because the government is so inept at running social programs.

Quote

Taxation has been on a steady decline since the 1950's, not up

source?

Quote

But the founding father's not only left us a list of specific powers, but a desire on how to use those powers. One of those is promoting the general Welfare of the United States, as well as the necessary powers to do so.

Thats simply incorrect.

Quote

Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence

All of those things are tied to one of the enumerated powers. If general welfare was meant to be applied the way you say it should be, why is not one of the enumerated powers "To be do whatever is necessary to reinforce the general welfare of the populace". It only makes sense that they meant it to be applied in direct relation to the enumerated powers and not to be a fix all.

My point about federal healthcare then was that the needs of the poor and unhealthy were much more vast because of the level of technology at the time. Why, if they would not have been opposed to federal healthcare per the constitution, did they not implement it? Back to my original point, why did they not implement any social programs or support any failing businesses with tax dollars?

That seems to be the problem. The government should not be this giant morphing entity that can consume resources depending on how large it is. It should have a set number of power and duties (constitution) and need to tax only to fund those needs. As Bosk mentioned in the thread about healthcare, part of the reason we have such a huge deficit is because the government is so inept at running social programs.

Medicare outperforms the "free-market," in terms of cost, efficiency and quality.

Social security has gone up, but it's size in comparison to income tax makes it's rise irrelevant to the fact that taxes have gone down.

Quote

Quote

But the founding father's not only left us a list of specific powers, but a desire on how to use those powers. One of those is promoting the general Welfare of the United States, as well as the necessary powers to do so.

Thats simply incorrect.

It's directly in the constitution. Even if someone accepts your insane argument that somehow the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to provide for the general Welfare of the people - despite the fact that the Constitution literally says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

You are now literally ignoring what is written in the Constitution, not simply debating interpretation.

Quote

Quote

Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence

All of those things are tied to one of the enumerated powers. If general welfare was meant to be applied the way you say it should be, why is not one of the enumerated powers "To be do whatever is necessary to reinforce the general welfare of the populace". It only makes sense that they meant it to be applied in direct relation to the enumerated powers and not to be a fix all.

So you really want to ignore the fact that that list starts out by saying these are powers of congress? Maybe they felt "general Welfare" didn't need further description, maybe they felt such was idiotic as it says, "general Welfare" and is thus rather hard to particulate.

But to even answer your question, what of the powers listed which don't pertain to taxes, duties, imposts, excises, paying of debts or defense? There two:

Quote

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Here's two powers given which don't fit any of your criteria, but do fit the idea of "general Welfare."

Quote

My point about federal healthcare then was that the needs of the poor and unhealthy were much more vast because of the level of technology at the time. Why, if they would not have been opposed to federal healthcare per the constitution, did they not implement it? Back to my original point, why did they not implement any social programs or support any failing businesses with tax dollars?

Your first sentence doesn't actually work with what you're saying. They didn't implement it because it was entirely impractical at the time, it's infeasibility meant that there was never a debate regarding the issue. To use this as some sort of proof that the founding fathers wouldn't' support universal health care is absurd.

Here's two powers given which don't fit any of your criteria, but do fit the idea of "general Welfare."

You missed my point. It was that they list a quaint summary of the powers like defense and taxes, and then go on to relist the actual powers in great detail. General welfare is strangely not there. If they meant general welfare as you define it, they would have listed it as a power and elaborated on its uses.

I'm just baffled. I perform an argument, and then you object to my argument by asking for the exact same argument I just gave. They don't specifically restate the power to "provide for the common defense" either, they just list a series of related powers.

What do you feel about drugs, prostitution, censorship, and the banning of books, movies, games, TV shows, etc? Normally these are considered conservative things (the last 2 for, the first 2 against), but I would think a libertarian should have no problem with it, right?

I refuse to believe that these people are serious, that is just too much.

Title: TIME TO SAVE THE WORLD AGAIN, LADS
Post by: AndyDT on January 11, 2010, 03:56:11 PM

Quote

The fact of the matter is this: while the Germans can claim to have come up with the car, the Italians with electricity and the French with flight, everything else that has ever mattered in the whole of human history has come from a man in a shed in Britain.

Everything. The internet, penicillin, the mechanical computer, the electronic computer, steam power, the seed drill, the seismograph, the umbrella, Viagra, polyester, the lawnmower, the fax machine, depth charges, scuba suits, the spinning jenny . . . I could go on, so I will.

Radar, the television, the telephone, the hovercraft, the jet engine, the sewing machine, the periodic table . . . It doesn't matter what field you're talking about - from submarine warfare to erectile dysfunction. The world always turns to Britain when some fresh thought is needed. And with only 25,000 engineers coming out of our universities every year, I fear the world may be doomed.

Of course, you may imagine that the giant economy that is America will ride in on a horse and save the day, but don't hold your breath. They got through the sound barrier only thanks to us; they stole the computer from under our noses; and they got into space only thanks to the Germans, who knew about rockets only because our Spitfires had made mincemeat of their Messerschmitts.

The Americans? Pah. Left to their own devices, I doubt they could build a pencil.

Sir James Dyson, who makes purple vacuum cleaners of such immense power that they can suck up rugs, mice and even medium-sized children, is so worried about the situation that he's opening a new academy, which will be called the Dyson School of Design and Innovation.

Pat Robertson -- "Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, They were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got togethter and swore a pact to the Devil. True story."

Pat Robertson -- "Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, They were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got togethter and swore a pact to the Devil. True story."

I was just coming here to post about that. The man is genuinely, bat-shit insane. Great fun to watch, though. I like the 700 Club a lot more than most of Fox's programming.

I thought, if anything, his trip proved how little our country cares about the monarchy. The turnouts were not very large at all.

Also, the main reason Australian's don't want the flag to change is because we don't really find it necessary. Maybe, if we left the commonwealth but otherwise it is not an urgent matter.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6999813.ece

Women made up the overwhelming majority of a crowd of more than 2,000 that greeted William at the Botanic Gardens in Sydney last week. Girls screamed, “I love you William,” and clamoured to shake his hand. “It was just the perfect handshake,” said Alexandra Green, 15. “It was gentle ... like a prince.”

Two young girls carrying a sign for the prince and an Australian flag were so moved by his appearance that they vowed they would “totally never vote for a republic”.

I thought, if anything, his trip proved how little our country cares about the monarchy. The turnouts were not very large at all.

Also, the main reason Australian's don't want the flag to change is because we don't really find it necessary. Maybe, if we left the commonwealth but otherwise it is not an urgent matter.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6999813.ece

Women made up the overwhelming majority of a crowd of more than 2,000 that greeted William at the Botanic Gardens in Sydney last week. Girls screamed, “I love you William,” and clamoured to shake his hand. “It was just the perfect handshake,” said Alexandra Green, 15. “It was gentle ... like a prince.”

Two young girls carrying a sign for the prince and an Australian flag were so moved by his appearance that they vowed they would “totally never vote for a republic”.

The turnouts were not very large at all. When Princess Diana came down, those were some big turnouts.

natural selection is a fact, I agree, but natural selection IS NOT evolution! The word "SELECTION" gives it all away... it is a process where information is SELECTED from what is already there, i.e. it is an INFORMATION LOOSING process.

natural selection is a fact, I agree, but natural selection IS NOT evolution! The word "SELECTION" gives it all away... it is a process where information is SELECTED from what is already there, i.e. it is an INFORMATION LOOSING process.

If it wasn't for Mythbusters, I would probably cancel my "Knowledge" pack with Sky.

I mean, who wants to watch a programme about people demolishing buildings (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/detonators/detonators.html) ? Snore. I mean, in one episode they were just blowing up watermelons and got all excited when they managed to blow them all up :facepalm:

If it wasn't for Mythbusters, I would probably cancel my "Knowledge" pack with Sky.

I mean, who wants to watch a programme about people demolishing buildings (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/detonators/detonators.html) ? Snore. I mean, in one episode they were just blowing up watermelons and got all excited when they managed to blow them all up :facepalm:

Sorry, I was talking more about Discovery (as a single case; I've never watched any other "science" channel, and even that was several years ago, before Steve Irwin passed away). I do actually have a deal of respect for Mythbusters, as they seem to take a marginally scientific perspective when attempting to disprove a myth.

I just recall seeing all the robot-building, motorcycle-customizing, blow-stuff-up programmes, and thinking along the same lines as the Onion article. After re-reading your post though, I'm fairly certain we, in fact, agree :P

Andy, sports and a national figure are hardly grounds for two countries unifying. You might as well say the US and Japan are going to merge because Ninja Warrior and anime are popular in America.

Of course but they symbolise (to me) a changing in the assumptions of what demographic and sensibilities of person are now caling the shots in the US, representing the US and determining the direction of the US. It's no longer the stereotypical grey-haired anglosceptic/anglophobic Irish-American. It's people with closer links (and more importantly affinity) to Britiain, the British Empire and Commonwealth. About time IMHO.

"In order to have sex, you have to be confident in your sexuality, or at least appear confident," Pinter continued. "But in order to be confident, you have to have sex. It's, like, this Catch-22 sexual-confidence loop that I spent all of high school and half of college trying to break. And now I have to break it all over again."

"In order to have sex, you have to be confident in your sexuality, or at least appear confident," Pinter continued. "But in order to be confident, you have to have sex. It's, like, this Catch-22 sexual-confidence loop that I spent all of high school and half of college trying to break. And now I have to break it all over again."

So, our governement fell apart last night - over the ongoing Irak debate (whether they should have gone given the information that was provided). New voting period will probably be in two months, and the statistics for now show that the guy I want the least in power (Geert Wilders, that racist douchebag) will probably get a lot of votes. Furthermore we will be without a normal governement until september/october.

Hurray...

I don't know if the term governement is correct in this case by the way, seeing as our political system is way different from the US and I couldn't find a good translation. I was talking about the people that lead our country of course.

Edit, news on the subject: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8525742.stmEdit2: and the issue is Afghanistan, not Iraq.

I meant Afghanistan of course. It's 2:45am, not that sharp anymore :p.

And Netherlands indeed. This will be an interesting period... I really hope that Geert Wilders will lose some of his support. He has no actual standpoints and is just the most populistic (?) politicus you can imagine. All he says is that the islam is evil, and he tries to be in the news as much as possible (make a anti-islam movie that is based on nothing and then get mad when people dislike him).

They have some similarities indeed. Seems all the 'joe the plumber' people love him, and all the people that actually dig a bit deeper into politics or have half a working brain despise him and everything he stands for. Too bad the former categorie is quite a lot bigger.

I have heard of people that were planning to vote for him (a while ago, at surveys) because he 'had nice hair'. Or because he 'was that guy from the television.' :facepalm:

:corn FUCK!!! Colombia's president (Uribe) had a verbal fight with Chávez today in Mexico at the Summit of Rio!!!! Uribe said: "Don't leave! Stay inside and be a man. These kind of topics [Chávez blocking commerce and expropriating Colombian's companies] are supposed to be discussed here. You are brave to go and insult from far away and coward to say it in my face." As to what Chavez responded: "Go fuck yourself! (¡Vete pa'l Carajo!)".

It's a real shame that dueling has become a thing of the past. It's so perfectly suited for heads of state. I've always thought it should be brought back.

There are sources that say that at one point they said: "let's go and fix this outside". :rollin They are fucking kids who hate each other. It's not that I like him, but Chávez would have whooped Uribe's ass in a swift.

Since the K2 thread got closed...Just felt like mentioning that the news here reported this morning that Kansas is now the first state that has banned the sale of K2.

The first of 50. A shame, actually. There was some talk on other boards that maybe one state would have the balls/common sense to try regulating it instead of criminalizing it, just as an experiment. It seems like anything that will give you a buzz and doesn't have a massive lobbying base will just never be acceptable to The Man.

Since the K2 thread got closed...Just felt like mentioning that the news here reported this morning that Kansas is now the first state that has banned the sale of K2.

The first of 50. A shame, actually. There was some talk on other boards that maybe one state would have the balls/common sense to try regulating it instead of criminalizing it, just as an experiment. It seems like anything that will give you a buzz and doesn't have a massive lobbying base will just never be acceptable to The Man.

That's still possible. I mean, this is Kansas we're talking about, not Califnoria, New York, or some even a blue state.

It's a shame, really. I only started drinking last summer out of curiosity of the effects, and when the time comes that I feel the want to try a different high, I'll have to go through illicit means, potentially exposing myself to criminal prosecution for merely being curious. The government tells me I can drink to get a high, but not smoke?

I've been thinking about sending an e-mail to my MLA or MP (regional Canadian provincial & federal representatives) and directly asking them why a substance such as weed is illicit. I suppose they'd just tell me it's a dangerous, addictive substance, eh?

Chances are fairly high they will. Weed seems to be seen as a lot more dangerous than alcohol. Both are legal here and alcohol certainly causes more trouble (and is also consumed more than weed though).

I'm no fan of the healthcare bill, but it's fascinating to me that all of these people who think this is the death-knell for Amerika seemed to be all sunshine and lollipops in 2002. Personally, I think the bells been pealing for a while. This is just another chime, and nowhere near as loud as the USAPATRIOT Act or the senseless, bloody land grabs in the Middle East.

No, em, he's pretty much right. The fact that they're still calling it "Obamacare" just goes to show you how little they know. They're completely riffing off of the fact that scared, old, white people don't like Obama by prefixing his name to everything the government does. Did you see the statistics about when the Tea Parties were polled yet?

Funny, a LOT of people I know who are bitching up a storm about this healthcare bill and farewell, America, and how much it's going to cost, are the same ones who NEVER seem to have one negative word to say about spending trillions of dollars and thousands of lives liberating a country that we at least THOUGHT maybe had some weapons that they shouldn't have had.

My brother said to my mother, via Facebook:

Quote

Tonight we got a chance to witness, firsthand, the first part of an effort by the Democrats to forcibly dismantle the country that I grew up in and love. They want to change it to something the founding fathers never intended it to be, and have ignored every bit of protest against it. They were going to have this, no matter what it costs them. It's disgusting.

Mrs. Cozmo directed me to a comment I quite liked, regarding people who love to constantly bang the "Founding Fathers Drum":

Quote

Not a single one of them could have forseen how complex the world is today.

I know how unique the founding of our country was and I appreciate the effort and sacrifice made by so many of our predecessors. But so many people refer to the intentions of the Founding Fathers when trying to decide what our policies should be today.

Our founding fathers were a product of their time and as such they wanted to govern based on those times. If any one of them were around today they would likely go insane trying to lead this country. Besides, they created a country with the intentions of the country actually advancing. Advancement brings with it change. And some change is good and some may be bad. But we need to make our decisions based on the realities of today, not by looking back at a group of people who had no possible way of knowing what obstacles would present themselves.

So founding fathers, my ass. This country wasn't just running along, doing AWESOME until the big bad Democrats came along and fucked with the founding fathers, on a healthcare issue.

Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about politics or this healthcare bill in specific. For me, politics is generally like the verbal equivalent of watching paint dry. As far as this whole healthcare thing is concerned, I think about the fact that forever and a day, you hear people bitching about how awful and unfair and stick it to the consumer the whole health care system in this country is. Now that someone wants to attempt to do something about it, suddenly, somehow, the old system that f*cked you 234 different ways from Sunday is just fine? WTF?

I don't buy the "You are complaining about this (healthcare) but not about this (unnecessary wars)?". One thing is being your now-a-days Republican which, honestly, are in the line of Neo-Conservatism. The mainstream has been for the past year Progressives vs Neo-Cons. And this is the spectrum where people just usually lie and start their discussions not considering what others have said.

Hell, we all know that there's more than one spectrum. Concerning the Tea Party, they lack good leadership from someone who knows what it really is about. They have become people who have a vague idea of what they are supposed to do but get carried away and start shouting harangues at people who don't agree with them. They lack a focus and leadership, and thus they won't accomplish anything.

Hell, we all know that there's more than one spectrum. Concerning the Tea Party, they lack good leadership from someone who knows what it really is about. They have become people who have a vague idea of what they are supposed to do but get carried away and start shouting harangues at people who don't agree with them. They lack a focus and leadership, and thus they won't accomplish anything.

Because at the end of the day, people really don't give a shit about ideology. Ideology won't inspire Americans to do anything. We need buzzwords, talking points, etc.

All these people are complaining about health-care when during the campaign the democratic candidates both said they agreed with a bill that would have been much stronger than this if not a complete government take over of the industry. Same with Republicans-- it'll (thankfully) never be about adhering to the "small government no matter what happens or what the people demand" ideology because the minute a republican gets into office, 2/3rds of the complainers start walking around with firecrackers in their ass; just like so many of the anti-war protestors on the Obama bandwagon suddenly think the war is a good thing.

Even if some do, people should start looking for the best option and not for better options. I mean, you guys used to have the best medical treatment and the great majority found it affordable. Those who couldn't, found a helping hand with charity. What I find baffling is why people aren't asking why.

A few gems from my Facebook news feed, featuring the Fordham University College Republicans

Quote

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them." I believe right now is that time.

Quote

Freedom is under attack. The constitution is under attack. But i am not worried because we will fight.

God Bless America and FUCK those who seek to destroy her.

Quote

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.

Regardless of your feelings on the issue, isn't this all a little EXTREME? I'm embarrassed for my classmates, and worried that these douchebags are going to be the ones running things in a few decades.

Even if some do, people should start looking for the best option and not for better options. I mean, you guys used to have the best medical treatment and the great majority found it affordable. Those who couldn't, found a helping hand with charity. What I find baffling is why people aren't asking why.

I think everybody knows why. All aspects of the industry have become incredibly expensive because all of the people within it are trying to get rich. Doctors, hospitals, big pharm, lawyers, insurance companies. An entire subset of civilization, all trying to get rich off of humanities interest in staying alive. When it was nothing more than a doctor who wanted to treat people, of course it was affordable. The days of doctors taking livestock for payment are long past. They all want to be driving Porsches now.

Even if some do, people should start looking for the best option and not for better options. I mean, you guys used to have the best medical treatment and the great majority found it affordable. Those who couldn't, found a helping hand with charity. What I find baffling is why people aren't asking why.

I think everybody knows why. All aspects of the industry have become incredibly expensive because all of the people within it are trying to get rich. Doctors, hospitals, big pharm, lawyers, insurance companies. An entire subset of civilization, all trying to get rich off of humanities interest in staying alive. When it was nothing more than a doctor who wanted to treat people, of course it was affordable. The days of doctors taking livestock for payment are long past. They all want to be driving Porsches now.

You really think that it's because they want to be driving a fancy car that costs have risen up?

Even if some do, people should start looking for the best option and not for better options. I mean, you guys used to have the best medical treatment and the great majority found it affordable. Those who couldn't, found a helping hand with charity. What I find baffling is why people aren't asking why.

I think everybody knows why. All aspects of the industry have become incredibly expensive because all of the people within it are trying to get rich. Doctors, hospitals, big pharm, lawyers, insurance companies. An entire subset of civilization, all trying to get rich off of humanities interest in staying alive. When it was nothing more than a doctor who wanted to treat people, of course it was affordable. The days of doctors taking livestock for payment are long past. They all want to be driving Porsches now.

You really think that it's because they want to be driving a fancy car that costs have risen up?

Of course that was a generalization, but I absolutely believe that the motivation of most doctors has changed from altruism to prestige and money.

Of the ones I personally know, the vast majority couldn't care less about prestige. Money, perhaps. But not at the expense of their patients. Many feel entitled to make good money because of (1) the amount of time, effort, and money it took them to get to be a doctor in the first place; (2) the amount of time, stress, and personal commitment they put into their work; and (3) they have to spend an obscene amount of money on malpractice insurance because the odds are they will be sued multiple times for malpractice during their careers whether they actually commit malpractice or not.

Of the ones I personally know, the vast majority couldn't care less about prestige. Money, perhaps. But not at the expense of their patients. Many feel entitled to make good money because of (1) the amount of time, effort, and money it took them to get to be a doctor in the first place; (2) the amount of time, stress, and personal commitment they put into their work; and (3) they have to spend an obscene amount of money on malpractice insurance because the odds are they will be sued multiple times for malpractice during their careers whether they actually commit malpractice or not.

Great post. I have a number of friends becoming MD's and I can't think of a single one that is doing it for money or prestige. The dedication they must have to have in order to finish all of their phases of training has to be incredible. Now, some of the friends they've made in med school are pompous asses, but we can all meet that kind of person all over.

I think it is unfair to judge doctors so negatively. They put so much time and effort into their field that if they don't actually have some sort of altruistic base their life must be miserable. Money and prestige aren't going to make someone happy when their life is so closely attached to their job.

I wouldn't want to imply that all doctors care more about money than their patient's well being; I'm sure that's not the case. My Dr. isn't raking in the dough, and I'm positive he genuinely cares about my health. What I do think is that people trying to figure out what to do with their life don't suddenly go "I want to help total strangers for the rest of my life." The money and the prestige are a big part the decision to become a doctor in the first place.

Riddle me this. If doctors are still practicing for truly altruistic reasons, why is so much of America under-served? People in bum-fuck Nevada have terrible access to medical treatment. The people working in hospitals up there are the altruists. They're working for next to nothing and living in the asshole of America.

So my conservative cousin posted this video: http://www.spike.com/video/brilliant-woman/3212215 on his facebook, with the comment, "this is the best and brightest in CA, and if its not obvious enough, she is a democrat."

So my conservative cousin posted this video: http://www.spike.com/video/brilliant-woman/3212215 on his facebook, with the comment, "this is the best and brightest in CA, and if its not obvious enough, she is a democrat."

TSA screener Rolando Negrin is facing assault charges in a case that involves the controversial, full body scanners being adopted in airports as part of increased security measures.

The images produced by the powerful x-ray scanners--detailed enough to show breast implants--have been compared to "virtual strip-searching."

Negrin reportedly passed through the screener during a training session on how to use the device, and the revealing x-ray image of him produced by the x-ray prompted teasing from coworkers, "who joked about the size of the man's genitalia," reports The Smoking Gun.

The Smoking Gun adds,"The X-ray revealed that [Negrin] has a small penis and co-workers made fun of him on a daily basis," reported cops. Following his arrest, Negrin told police that he "could not take the jokes anymore and lost his mind.

Negrin allegedly confronted his colleague, Hugo Osorno, in a parking lot after work and assaulted him with a police baton while demanding an apology.

TSA screener Rolando Negrin is facing assault charges in a case that involves the controversial, full body scanners being adopted in airports as part of increased security measures.

The images produced by the powerful x-ray scanners--detailed enough to show breast implants--have been compared to "virtual strip-searching."

Negrin reportedly passed through the screener during a training session on how to use the device, and the revealing x-ray image of him produced by the x-ray prompted teasing from coworkers, "who joked about the size of the man's genitalia," reports The Smoking Gun.

The Smoking Gun adds,"The X-ray revealed that [Negrin] has a small penis and co-workers made fun of him on a daily basis," reported cops. Following his arrest, Negrin told police that he "could not take the jokes anymore and lost his mind.

Negrin allegedly confronted his colleague, Hugo Osorno, in a parking lot after work and assaulted him with a police baton while demanding an apology.

I was gonna set that guy's mugshot up as my wallpaper at the shop. While the story itself is funny as hell, the picture is absolutely priceless. You can just look at him and tell A. he's got a little dick, and B. he has absolutely no sense of humor about it whatsoever. He looks exactly what the person in the story should look like.

TSA screener Rolando Negrin is facing assault charges in a case that involves the controversial, full body scanners being adopted in airports as part of increased security measures.

The images produced by the powerful x-ray scanners--detailed enough to show breast implants--have been compared to "virtual strip-searching."

Negrin reportedly passed through the screener during a training session on how to use the device, and the revealing x-ray image of him produced by the x-ray prompted teasing from coworkers, "who joked about the size of the man's genitalia," reports The Smoking Gun.

The Smoking Gun adds,"The X-ray revealed that [Negrin] has a small penis and co-workers made fun of him on a daily basis," reported cops. Following his arrest, Negrin told police that he "could not take the jokes anymore and lost his mind.

Negrin allegedly confronted his colleague, Hugo Osorno, in a parking lot after work and assaulted him with a police baton while demanding an apology.

I was gonna set that guy's mugshot up as my wallpaper at the shop. While the story itself is funny as hell, the picture is absolutely priceless. You can just look at him and tell A. he's got a little dick, and B. he has absolutely no sense of humor about it whatsoever. He looks exactly what the person in the story should look like.

I was gonna set that guy's mugshot up as my wallpaper at the shop. While the story itself is funny as hell, the picture is absolutely priceless. You can just look at him and tell A. he's got a little dick, and B. he has absolutely no sense of humor about it whatsoever. He looks exactly what the person in the story should look like.

[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]

"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."

Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this...

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship...]

"I come in peace," it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, "take me to your Lizard."

Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this...

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

I was coming back home from having a chat with some friends at this restaurant and this guy comes over me. "Excuse me, do you speak English?" I was surprised. No one speaks English here, and you will never get attended by someone in English unless you are in a big and expensive place. So I was surprised because I was stopped by a guy talking to me in English. I said "Yeah". I noticed how he was dressed; he was missing all of his front teeth; his face was dirty and his hands were dirty. He extended his hand and said "What's up, man? I'm American". Because I've lived here all my life I know how things run here. In two seconds I could just read the background of this guy. I was thinking to myself "He's American, so what? yeah, his accent is legit but he wants your money". He extended his dirty hand at me for me to shake it, I looked at it and said in a serious tone "No!". He asked: "Hey, man, could you please help me out?" I knew he wanted money. I knew he wanted money for drugs. I said to him "NO" and I give a step forward, he threw away at me some papers he had in his hand and says "Fuck off". I turned my head and yelled "FUCK YOU!" and walked away.

I never thought to see the day where an American will come here to Colombia, get his life in the toilet because he got addicted to drugs, and expected me to help him get his hourly fix. An American almsman in Colombia? It's supposed to be the other way around!

I was coming back home from having a chat with some friends at this restaurant and this guy comes over me. "Excuse me, do you speak English?" I was surprised. No one speaks English here, and you will never get attended by someone in English unless you are in a big and expensive place. So I was surprised because I was stopped by a guy talking to me in English. I said "Yeah". I noticed how he was dressed; he was missing all of his front teeth; his face was dirty and his hands were dirty. He extended his hand and said "What's up, man? I'm American". Because I've lived here all my life I know how things run here. In two seconds I could just read the background of this guy. I was thinking to myself "He's American, so what? yeah, his accent is legit but he wants your money". He extended his dirty hand at me for me to shake it, I looked at it and said in a serious tone "No!". He asked: "Hey, man, could you please help me out?" I knew he wanted money. I knew he wanted money for drugs. I said to him "NO" and I give a step forward, he threw away at me some papers he had in his hand and says "Fuck off". I turned my head and yelled "FUCK YOU!" and walked away.

I never thought to see the day where an American will come here to Colombia, get his life in the toilet because he got addicted to drugs, and expected me to help him get his hourly fix. An American almsman in Colombia? It's supposed to be the other way around!

I'm no expert, true, but when you have been living here all your life you know how a street junkie looks like -no matter the nationality (and I've seen street junkies here that came from Peru, Argentina etc).

Had him be just a beggar he would have walked away. Junkies have the peculiarity of dismissing you in an aggressive way when you don't collaborate with them. This asshole even threw me some papers at me saying "fuck off".

I'm no expert, true, but when you have been living here all your life you know how a street junkie looks like -no matter the nationality (and I've seen street junkies here that came from Peru, Argentina etc).

Had him be just a beggar he would have walked away. Junkies have the peculiarity of dismissing you in an aggressive way when you don't collaborate with them. This asshole even threw me some papers at me saying "fuck off".

OK, today could be a historic day for Colombia. We vote for our president (today is the first round -the candidate needs 50%+1 vote to win unanimously or there will be a second round with the top two candidates of today's election).

This could be the first time that an independent, under the Green Party flag, could be named president of Colombia. He has no strings attached, he's honest and has an impeccable record.

My problem is that his ideas are too socialist for me and he wants the State to grow bigger but more transparent. That's a contradiction in my book. Hopefully, the elections today will be held with peace and a massive a assistance in the urns.

Thats the thing, nobody seems to know. Some parties are already announcing preferences for a coalition before the elections have even started. But almost none are compatible seeing as they are also stating that some things are 'breaking points' for them (Things they absolutely don't/do want to change).

Also, the two parties who are now projected to get most votes are a pretty left and a pretty right party. The biggest party has to make a coalition, so a few votes could make a huge difference.

O, and we also have this extreme right party, led by Geert Wilders. You might know him from the fact that he is a Islam-hating attention whore.

Andy, every beggar wants money to buy alcohol and drugs, that's why they're bums in the first place.

Often, but definitely not always the case. I work in an area with a ton of bums, and I can tell you that while plenty of them are drunks, plenty of them aren't. Moreover, I suspect quite a few of them are drunks because they're homeless and not the other way around. I can tell you that if I were stuck in that kind of cycle1, I'd probably want to get shitfaced every night too.

1Yes, I'm aware that "stuck" is a debatable term. Not relevant to the topic at hand.

A) The religious right realizes they are ruinign everything and change all of their policiesor B) A civil war happens and the moderates take over without the consent of the religious extremists who need be to kicked out.

Seriously, I have so many ideas as to how to fix that country, sucks I'll never be in a place to do anything about it.

Andy, every beggar wants money to buy alcohol and drugs, that's why they're bums in the first place.

Often, but definitely not always the case. I work in an area with a ton of bums, and I can tell you that while plenty of them are drunks, plenty of them aren't. Moreover, I suspect quite a few of them are drunks because they're homeless and not the other way around. I can tell you that if I were stuck in that kind of cycle1, I'd probably want to get shitfaced every night too.

1Yes, I'm aware that "stuck" is a debatable term. Not relevant to the topic at hand.

A) The religious right realizes they are ruinign everything and change all of their policiesor B) A civil war happens and the moderates take over without the consent of the religious extremists who need be to kicked out.

Seriously, I have so many ideas as to how to fix that country, sucks I'll never be in a place to do anything about it.

However, I know a lot of americans associate the country to the leader. So like when they hated bush, they for some reason hated america. I don't do that. I hate the current Israeli government, but I love my country. Not blindly, as I hope some of you can see.

2) You can resign as president and you're still forever referred to as Mr. President. It's just the way it's done.

Was Nixon referred to as Mr. President after he left? I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

We've had this discussion in another thread.

Formally, neither presidents nor governors get to keep their titles. The rule is if there is only one at a time, then that person gets the title. President Obama. Mr Clinton, Mr. Nixon, etc. The Honorable is an acceptable honorific which remains in place: The Honorable Mr. Dumbass. Judges, congressmen, generals, etc. all get to keep their titles since it's not exclusive to the current holder.

In private, it's considered acceptable to use any title; all of their friends refer[ed] to President Nixon and Speaker Gingrich. It's considered a courtesy title.

Lastly, people who retire can choose to revert back to a previous title if it's acceptable after the fact. General Eisenhower>>>President Eisenhower>>> General Eisenhower, Ret. Clinton can't go back to Governor Clinton because of the first rule.

http://www.formsofaddress.info/former.html#FO011

Also, Fuckwad O'Reilley might not have been technically incorrect, depending on the context. Basically, he can refer to her any way she wants. While Governor Palin is technically incorrect, she can ask to be called "Her Royal majesty, the Queen of Shit for Brains" if she'd like (see Nixon and Gingrich). Also, if he's referring to her in the third person, then it's acceptable for reporters to use an honorific to be more specific, though appending former would be the non-biased way to go about it.

Because of what I bolded... can the environment be incidentally on their way to profits? Of course! Going "green" is the way of the future because going "green" simply means getting more efficient. McDondalds isn't just going to go green just because it improves their public image, but because it will also, eventually, save them money.

I disagree. Going green is switching to methods of power which damage the environment the least. Oil and Gasoline are the cheapest sources of power right now which makes them the most efficient to use. I have no doubt that if the green movement never existed that any non essential industrial green improvements would never be made ever. In fact, artificially requiring companies to switch without the proper mechanisms causing the market to naturally shift causes more eventual harm then good.

It's also about reducing our demands, which not only eases the demand on a fledgling green energy industry, but it quite obviously saves you money. Lower monthly bills eventually counter the initial cost of investment, just like how higher monthly income eventually counter's the initial cost of investment.

El Barto, you have any insight on the wind industry in Texas? From what I've heard, the State created a carbon market, and made incentives for there to be wind energy. The market took off, exceeding expectations, and Texas now leads the nation in Wind energy production.

Hello there. I'm gonna try posting in this forum more often. I may not be the most politically intelligent person, but I do have solid opinions on things I'd like to express. I'm pretty good at debating things with my stepdad, so I'll see how I do here. So give me some time to get used to everything in here. Thanks!-Collin

El Barto, you have any insight on the wind industry in Texas? From what I've heard, the State created a carbon market, and made incentives for there to be wind energy. The market took off, exceeding expectations, and Texas now leads the nation in Wind energy production.

Don't know anything about government incentives. Wind has always been pretty popular here, whether or not that's due to those incentives, I have no idea. The problem now is that the addition of so much wind power has saturated the infrastructure. T Boone Pickens was building what would have been one of the largest wind farms in the world, and has had to postpone it indefinitely due in part to a lack of available transmission lines.

Ya, forgetting about transmission lines was a major oops in the entire ordeal, but that's not an entirely hard thing to accomplish (that is, there's no technological issue). But... doesn't reaching that infrastructural bottleneck show how much wind energy has shot up in the market place?

Ya, forgetting about transmission lines was a major oops in the entire ordeal, but that's not an entirely hard thing to accomplish (that is, there's no technological issue). But... doesn't reaching that infrastructural bottleneck show how much wind energy has shot up in the market place?

The infrastructure's also ~60 years old and really showed its vulnerability/inability the 2003 blackout.

Ya, forgetting about transmission lines was a major oops in the entire ordeal, but that's not an entirely hard thing to accomplish (that is, there's no technological issue). But... doesn't reaching that infrastructural bottleneck show how much wind energy has shot up in the market place?

The infrastructure's also ~60 years old and really showed its vulnerability/inability the 2003 blackout.

Ya, we really need to update our infrastructure. We waste a lot of energy in the ones we have now.

Ya, forgetting about transmission lines was a major oops in the entire ordeal, but that's not an entirely hard thing to accomplish (that is, there's no technological issue). But... doesn't reaching that infrastructural bottleneck show how much wind energy has shot up in the market place?

The infrastructure's also ~60 years old and really showed its vulnerability/inability the 2003 blackout.

Ya, we really need to update our infrastructure. We waste a lot of energy in the ones we have now.

Interesting. I'm not sure we should even think about upgrading infrastructure now, since we have no idea what we'll be upgrading to. In the case of electricity, there is no efficient means of transporting it. We don't know what future demands will be (they might be lower). We don't know where it will come from. A simple prediction might be that most buildings become electrically self-sufficient in the not-to-distant future.

Ya, forgetting about transmission lines was a major oops in the entire ordeal, but that's not an entirely hard thing to accomplish (that is, there's no technological issue). But... doesn't reaching that infrastructural bottleneck show how much wind energy has shot up in the market place?

The infrastructure's also ~60 years old and really showed its vulnerability/inability the 2003 blackout.

Ya, we really need to update our infrastructure. We waste a lot of energy in the ones we have now.

Interesting. I'm not sure we should even think about upgrading infrastructure now, since we have no idea what we'll be upgrading to. In the case of electricity, there is no efficient means of transporting it. We don't know what future demands will be (they might be lower). We don't know where it will come from. A simple prediction might be that most buildings become electrically self-sufficient in the not-to-distant future.

Good point, a delocalized power grid would completely change everything. I still think there will be some need for energy transportation, especially in big cities. Updating our power lines would not only allow for the transportation of the energy, but would waste less of it, reducing demand.

Ya, forgetting about transmission lines was a major oops in the entire ordeal, but that's not an entirely hard thing to accomplish (that is, there's no technological issue). But... doesn't reaching that infrastructural bottleneck show how much wind energy has shot up in the market place?

The infrastructure's also ~60 years old and really showed its vulnerability/inability the 2003 blackout.

Ya, we really need to update our infrastructure. We waste a lot of energy in the ones we have now.

Interesting. I'm not sure we should even think about upgrading infrastructure now, since we have no idea what we'll be upgrading to. In the case of electricity, there is no efficient means of transporting it. We don't know what future demands will be (they might be lower). We don't know where it will come from. A simple prediction might be that most buildings become electrically self-sufficient in the not-to-distant future.

Good point, a delocalized power grid would completely change everything. I still think there will be some need for energy transportation, especially in big cities. Updating our power lines would not only allow for the transportation of the energy, but would waste less of it, reducing demand.

Are there ways that power transmission lines can be upgraded to become more efficient?

If the only solution is to build more of them to offset loss, then I'd suggest that the better option would be to lessen demand downstream where possible (self-sufficient buildings) so that the places that still rely on massive amounts of external power can have more of the existing capacity.

Quote

Tick's picture

Since he's actually somewhat bright, and I never associated him with being bitter, I'd say the description sucks (though he does have shitty taste in beer).

Ya, forgetting about transmission lines was a major oops in the entire ordeal, but that's not an entirely hard thing to accomplish (that is, there's no technological issue). But... doesn't reaching that infrastructural bottleneck show how much wind energy has shot up in the market place?

The infrastructure's also ~60 years old and really showed its vulnerability/inability the 2003 blackout.

Ya, we really need to update our infrastructure. We waste a lot of energy in the ones we have now.

Interesting. I'm not sure we should even think about upgrading infrastructure now, since we have no idea what we'll be upgrading to. In the case of electricity, there is no efficient means of transporting it. We don't know what future demands will be (they might be lower). We don't know where it will come from. A simple prediction might be that most buildings become electrically self-sufficient in the not-to-distant future.

Good point, a delocalized power grid would completely change everything. I still think there will be some need for energy transportation, especially in big cities. Updating our power lines would not only allow for the transportation of the energy, but would waste less of it, reducing demand.

Are there ways that power transmission lines can be upgraded to become more efficient?

high-voltage transmission lines. It's nothing new, it's something we already do, we just don't fund it enough. But I also want to stress storage. At night, we produce a lot of energy which never gets used, so if we stored that, we would reduce the demand for new power plants. Some idea's I've seen for this are quite ingenious, like using an artificial underground lake to basically store wind energy; it works just like a damn during the day, just the water goes underground; then at night, when the wind is still active, that energy is used to pump the water back up into the river / water supply.

Quote

If the only solution is to build more of them to offset loss, then I'd suggest that the better option would be to lessen demand downstream where possible (self-sufficient buildings) so that the places that still rely on massive amounts of external power can have more of the existing capacity.

I agree, but it seems like in the meantime we can improve the grid as well.

As for that Obama picture.. not a bad play on words/meaning, but I find it ironic that the author says Obama has no head. Disagree with him all you want, the man is no dummy.

I think the man wants to be fired, it's almost like he pulled a George Costanza. And I mean, I completely disagree with Obama's strategy, even the one he talked about during the campaign... but I'm not a General, in charge of strategy, attempting to lead troops to victory... nor am I the underling of Obama.

McChrystal was wrong to dishonor the commander and chief in a tabloid, and in a piece of shit rag like Rolling Stone of all places. His thoughts were quite valid but definitely misplaced. Two wrongs don't make a right and maybe he has enough of Obama and this is his way oot. Obama will look bad no matter what he does on this.tick2:

Just read the RS article on McChrystal. RS is the biggest joke ever as a music magazine, but their political writing is often quite good. This was a damned enlightening piece of work. It provided a good portrait of an interesting guy, and pointed out the good/bad of the situation without pretending to know the answers.

This whole situation is a bummer. McChrystal seems like a damned useful guy to have working. Unfortunately, CI is invariably a losing proposition. The war in Afghanistan became unwinnable as soon as it became a military operation; about 3 months in. This guy was absolutely wrong and needed to be fired, but in many other instances, he'd be (and was) fantastic at his job. Just don't ask him to do the impossible, and CI in this situation is impossible.

But... isn't McChrystal the one who pushed for the current operations? So it's not as if he was asked to do something impossible, he suggested doing something impossible, and then realized it.

Definitely true. However, I'd guess his only options were to tell the C&C that the war is unwinnable and pull out, or adopt a CI strategy. He didn't choose CI. He inherited an insurgency and had to make a plan. He knew the difficulties and was aware that his plan would take many years; many more than he had. I'd blame is predicament on the last two presidents, as well as each successor until we get to the one with the balls to say "we're out of here." The president that will win this war is the one who can admit that we already lost.

How did he not choose CI? You yourself point out that he did have options, he didn't have to choose to fight. Isn't there a saying about bad generals, and not knowing the right time to fight? I just don't see how any of McChrsytals actions were involuntary. He had a bad situations to deal with, yes, but I have yet to see any evidence to suggest he wasn't fully free in how he responded. Obama went to him for advice on how to win the war, and McChyrstal gave him a CI plan...

He had a choice if you consider tendering your resignation a valid option. It's either "I quit, seeya," or "well, fuck, I guess lets deal with the insurgency then." I don't think he had much choice on the professional level. His job was to continue the war against Afghanistan. He chose to remain at his job and CI was the hand he was dealt.

He had a choice if you consider tendering your resignation a valid option. It's either "I quit, seeya," or "well, fuck, I guess lets deal with the insurgency then." I don't think he had much choice on the professional level. His job was to continue the war against Afghanistan. He chose to remain at his job and CI was the hand he was dealt.

Call me idealistic, I just don't think a General should put his profession above the troops he's commanding and putting into harms way. War is stupid fucking enough to begin with, and the last thing soldiers need is a General who's more concerned about his salary then their well-being.

Plus, there's no real certainty what would have happened had he suggested a withdrawal. Many people within the Military may not have liked it, but none of that matters given the President's commands.

He had a choice if you consider tendering your resignation a valid option. It's either "I quit, seeya," or "well, fuck, I guess lets deal with the insurgency then." I don't think he had much choice on the professional level. His job was to continue the war against Afghanistan. He chose to remain at his job and CI was the hand he was dealt.

Call me idealistic, I just don't think a General should put his profession above the troops he's commanding and putting into harms way. War is stupid fucking enough to begin with, and the last thing soldiers need is a General who's more concerned about his salary then their well-being.

Plus, there's no real certainty what would have happened had he suggested a withdrawal. Many people within the Military may not have liked it, but none of that matters given the President's commands.

I don't know that he didn't suggest withdrawal. Whether he did or not, if the decision has been made to continue the war, then any general worth a damn will take the attitude that they're the best man for the job. This guy in particular was highly arrogant, and undoubtedly believed that if there was to be a CI operation, then he stood the best chance of pulling it off. That's not to say that he liked the idea, just that he wanted the best for it if that was the decision. This is a professional decision not motivated by personal gain.

I suppose in time we may know whether or not he did, but it doesn't seem like a very plausible scenario to me.

And, I'm sorry, but I just don't see how a "professional decision" cannot be "motivated by personal gain." That seems like an inherent contradiction to me - or does it have to do with the hopeful altruism of the military?

I specifically remember Obama promising to get the U.S. out of Iraq in 2009. He said it when campaigning against Hillary Clinton: "I was against the war in 2003, I'm against the war in 2008, and I'm going to get us out of the war in 2009." I'm surprised this hasn't been talked about more. Well, not surprised, since the media is the 4th branch of the government.

No, it is precisely what the poster is saying. The problem is carbohydrates whether they contain hfcs or not. The federal dietary guidelines also recommend way too many as part of a healthy diet.

According to the FDA a healthy adult male should be eating 300 carbs per day from fruit or otherwise. Do you know what that would do to anyones blood sugar? The results would be disastrous and almost certainly cause the person to become fat and develop insulin resistance and diabetes as well as a number of ailments commonly associated with obesity.

Not all carbohydrates effects the body in the same way. Fructose causes increased insulin resistance and bad cholesterol, as compared to glucose.

Besides, remember that I don't agree with a recommended diet by the government. There isn't a one size fit's all diet. However, that poster throws the baby out with the bath water. Yes, we eat too much carbohydrates, but don't demonize grains in the process - demonize the vast amounts of sweeteners and sugars Americans digest in just about everything.

NR, I'm just curious, are you under the impression that all vegetarians and vegans are fat with diabetes and heart problems? It seems you say meat is the best thing to eat and everything else is bad for you.

No, you are confusing two things. Glucose is used by the body as a fuel source for some things, but glucose and fructose are both simple sugars and both cause the same adverse affects in the body when consumed in more than small quantities.

Havel acknowledges that the study does little to answer the question of whether the body processes high-fructose corn syrup differently from table sugar or other sweeteners.

Cardiologist James Rippe, MD, who is a consultant for the Corn Refiners Association, says there is no credible scientific evidence that high-fructose corn syrup is a bigger cause of obesity or chronic disease than any of the other sugars used in processed foods.

Quote

NR, I'm just curious, are you under the impression that all vegetarians and vegans are fat with diabetes and heart problems? It seems you say meat is the best thing to eat and everything else is bad for you.

Not at all. Meat is the best diet for humans, but a vegetarian or vegan diet can work.

I don't know of any known civilizations who purposefully avoided meat and embraced grains and vegetation who have been held up as shining examples of success. I know that it can work as I said, but that meat naturally provides the vitamins and nutrition that all parts of the human body need with little modification whereas you need to take extra steps when fashioning a vegetarian or vegan diet to meet your dietary requirements.

But are you claiming that a majority of vegetarians/vegans are obese, unhealthy or have heart problems and diabetes? Or that most meat eaters are very healthy? If not, then I'm not sure how your case holds up.

But is that WHY they're healthy? Cause someone people who indulge in meat more than other things are very unhealthy. And some people who avoid meats are very healthy. Is it just a correlation you're latching on to? Or is your last name atkins?

And like I said, in any environment where diets have been observed or studied over long periods of time animal fat consumption has proven to be healthier than carbohydrate consumption and also prevent the development of many diseases we commonly associate with obesity and fat.

I don't know of any known civilizations who purposefully avoided meat and embraced grains and vegetation who have been held up as shining examples of success.

India?

Also, from the same webct article you linked to:

Quote

New research shows big differences in how the sugars fructose and glucose are metabolized by the body...Both groups gained weight during the 10-week study, but the fructose group gained more of the dangerous belly fat that has been linked to a higher risk for heart attack and stroke...Both the groups gained weight during the trial, but imaging studies revealed that most of the added fat in the fructose group occurred in the belly, while most of the fat gained by the glucose group was subcutaneous (under the skin).

Belly fat, but not subcutaneous fat, has been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and diabetes.

The fructose group had higher total cholesterol and LDL "bad" cholesterol, plus greater insulin resistance, which are consistent with metabolic syndrome, while the glucose group did not.

Did you just ignore that part? Like I said, fructose is correlated with more insulin resistance, more bad cholesterol, and general worse health effects than glucose.

It's rather hilarious to be told I'm confusing two things, then be linked an article which says the exact same thing I said...

It's rather hilarious to be told I'm confusing two things, then be linked an article which says the exact same thing I said...

Those little tidbits are irrelevant. The study did not conclusively show that hfcs is any worse for you than glucose. All it did was show that glucose creates more subcutaneous fat and less visceral which is still bad for you, and suggest that hfcs does more than glucose without providing the background data to know whether or not it was because of the fructose. Even if it were true, the higher levels that hfcs may elevate blood sugar and encourage insulin resistance would only be a small amount higher than that of glucose. So either way, if you eat too much sugar you will gain weight and eventually develop diabetes and its associated diseases. It is not solely the fructose or hfcs that causes the problems associated with the food pyramid.

Quote

Tschop says whether the sweetener is high-fructose corn syrup or something else, it is clear that Americans are eating too much sugar.

Sugar comes from carbohydrates and we eat too many.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/25/corn.syrup.sugar/index.html

Quote

"The debate about which one is better for you is a false debate, because neither of them is good for you," says Elizabeth Abbott, author of the forthcoming "Sugar: A Bittersweet History."

What exactly is that supposed to show? India and it's culture go back for millenia, and have had a similar diet for a lot of that time period - why, then, is this a new rising epidemic? It couldn't possibly be because of lifestyle? After all, India is modernizing, it's workforce is becoming increasingly urban and sedentary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_India

Quote

India is following a trend of other developing countries that are steadily becoming more obese. Unhealthy, processed food has become much more accessible following India's continued integration in global food markets

So yes, carbohydrate are the problem, but the ones you find in processed foods.

Furthermore, India and America have similiar obesity rates, yet most Indian's never eat meat. If what you are saying is true, shouldn't we see much more obese Indians than American's? After all, according to you, we eat more meat, therefore we eat healthier. American's eat more meat than anyone else in the world.

Quote

It's rather hilarious to be told I'm confusing two things, then be linked an article which says the exact same thing I said...

Quote

Those little tidbits are irrelevant. The study did not conclusively show that hfcs is any worse for you than glucose. All it did was show that glucose creates more subcutaneous fat and less visceral which is still bad for you, and suggest that hfcs does more than glucose without providing the background data to know whether or not it was because of the fructose. Even if it were true, the higher levels that hfcs may elevate blood sugar and encourage insulin resistance would only be a small amount higher than that of glucose. So either way, if you eat too much sugar you will gain weight and eventually develop diabetes and its associated diseases. It is not solely the fructose or hfcs that causes the problems associated with the food pyramid.

I said fructose causes increased insulin resistance. It does. I said fructose causes increased bad cholesterol. It does. I said different carbohydrates affect the body differently. They do. No where did I ever say that it's solely the fructose. I said as compared to glucose. Importantly, the increased presence of HFCS in every sort of processed food also means an increase in the presence of glucose. My argument is against processed sugars / added sweeteners.

Besides, are you going to imply that Americans actually follow the food pyramids guidelines? One huge fault of your entire argument so far is that American's don't really eat according to the food pyramid / guidelines by the FDA. American's don't generally get their carbohydrates from fruits, vegetables and grains, they get them from manufactured and processed sugars which are added to foods, or drink it up in soda. I'm also willing to bet they go beyond the daily recommended value.

Another thing, how is that some diabetics manage their diabetes by going on vegetarian diets? Also:

Higher consumption of nuts (29) and whole grains (30) has been associated with lower rates of diabetes. In a large prospective study, fruit and vegetable intake was found to be inversely associated with the incidence of diabetes, particularly among women (31). Men and women who reported seldom or never eating fruit or green leafy vegetables had higher mean HbA1C levels than those who had more frequent consumption (32). An increased consumption of fruit and vegetables appears to contribute to the prevention of diabetes.

Havel acknowledges that the study does little to answer the question of whether the body processes high-fructose corn syrup differently from table sugar or other sweeteners.

Cardiologist James Rippe, MD, who is a consultant for the Corn Refiners Association, says there is no credible scientific evidence that high-fructose corn syrup is a bigger cause of obesity or chronic disease than any of the other sugars used in processed foods.

Well, I'm sold. If we can't trust doctors on the corn industry's payroll to give us an unbiased opinion of corn, whom can we trust?

On their website, the American Diabetes Association directs diabetics to eat between 45-60 grams of carbohydrates at each meal. Assuming a person eats three meals a day, this advice works out to telling diabetics to eat a minimum of 135 grams to a maximum of 180 grams of carbohydrates per day. Now, 180 grams of carbohydrates works out to 720 calories (1 gram of carb=4 calories). In a daily diet of 2000 calories, eating the minimum recommended carbs would set the daily percentage of carbs at 27% (540/2000) and the maximum carbs would be 36% (720/2000).

Quote

On their website, the American Diabetes Association nutritionist recommends the following guidelines for diabetics in designing a meal. She says to imagine a dinner plate, and keep carbs (brown rice, whole wheat pasta and 100% whole wheat bread) to no more than 1/4 of the plate at any meal. The non-starchy vegetables should fill 1/2 the plate. For the last quarter of the plate, add about 3 ounces of lean meat, chicken, or fish. She also says that a piece of fresh fruit or 1/2 cup of fruit salad for dessert, or even a "light" yogurt can be added for dessert. She recommends cooking with vegetable oils and cutting back on saturated fat.

If we analyze a typical meal using these guidelines, this is what we find:

Half of a 10.5 inch dinner plate works out to 35 square inches of space to fill with a non starchy vegetable. One can easily fit 2 cups of cooked yellow squash there – that’s about 18 grams of carb.In one quarter of the plate, there is about 15 square inches to fill. That could hold a cup of brown rice easily. That’s about 45 carbs.The last quarter plate would hold 3 oz of lean meat. That’s about 18 grams of protein.For dessert, a piece of fresh fruit – if we went with a medium orange, that’s another 15 grams of carb.Finally, the ADA says you can cook your veggies and protein in vegetable oil. (Forget for the moment that vegetable oils are polyunsaturated, meaning the chemical structure is volatile and easily oxidizes in the presence of heat. This introduces cancer causing free radicals into your food.) Sautéing 2 cups of squash would take about 1 T of canola oil. That’s about 14 grams of fat, and 125 calories.

What is so difficult to understand about breaks down into sugar? Just because you get the sugar from a complex nutritionally dense food does not negate the amount of sugar consumed. All carbohydrates by definition eventually break down into sugar.

Quote

Furthermore, India and America have similiar obesity rates, yet most Indian's never eat meat. If what you are saying is true, shouldn't we see much more obese Indians than American's? After all, according to you, we eat more meat, therefore we eat healthier. American's eat more meat than anyone else in the world.

As you know there are other markers to health than just weight. Eating no meat/less meat does not correspond with an increase in weight and a drop in overall health or well being. The point is, it has been proven that cultures who eat predominantly animal fat and few grains are healthier and have less incidence of disease than cultures that eat many grains and sugars and little/no meat. On a further note, eating meat does not mean you will be healthy in spite of any other factors. If you eat a lot of meat and a lot of sugar like an average american does at say Mcdonalds in a quarter pounder meal, how healthy do you think the population will be? You also confuse two separate arguments. A healthy diet of grains and meat can coexist as you point out India did in the past and as documentaries like fathead and studies like those done by Dr. Uffe Ravnskov prove. The key is portions.

The problem however is that an Indian diet does not consist solely of grains and leaves and does not adhere to a common vegetarian or vegan diet. Take a look at the indian diet on that page if you will. It contains a lot of vegetables, a lot of protein from various sources such as meat and legumes, and some grains. Not predominantly grains as you first thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_cuisine#Eating_Habitshttp://www.foodbycountry.com/Germany-to-Japan/India.html

Quote

Besides, are you going to imply that Americans actually follow the food pyramids guidelines? One huge fault of your entire argument so far is that American's don't really eat according to the food pyramid / guidelines by the FDA. American's don't generally get their carbohydrates from fruits, vegetables and grains, they get them from manufactured and processed sugars which are added to foods, or drink it up in soda. I'm also willing to bet they go beyond the daily recommended value.

Read that article above. Even at base recommendation from the FDA or ADA, Americans will consume too many carbohydrates even from all natural sources such as fruits and vegetables.

Quote

Well, I'm sold. If we can't trust doctors on the corn industry's payroll to give us an unbiased opinion of corn, whom can we trust?

I understand the criticism, but its bullshit. Is what the man saying wrong? Is a study funded by someone you agree with any more reliable? Is the work of anyone paid to do a specific job any less reliable?

Havel acknowledges that the study does little to answer the question of whether the body processes high-fructose corn syrup differently from table sugar or other sweeteners.

Cardiologist James Rippe, MD, who is a consultant for the Corn Refiners Association, says there is no credible scientific evidence that high-fructose corn syrup is a bigger cause of obesity or chronic disease than any of the other sugars used in processed foods.

Well, I'm sold. If we can't trust doctors on the corn industry's payroll to give us an unbiased opinion of corn, whom can we trust?

It's not just the corn refiner's consultant who knows the HFCS is no worse than sugar. Even the food cops know there's no difference between them. Barry Popkin (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-12-08-fructose-corn-syrup_N.htm), who started the craze over HFCS, retracted the claims he made about it in 2004. Even CSPI, a vegetarian group and no friend to the food industry, says the hype over HFCS is false.

On their website, the American Diabetes Association directs diabetics to eat between 45-60 grams of carbohydrates at each meal. Assuming a person eats three meals a day, this advice works out to telling diabetics to eat a minimum of 135 grams to a maximum of 180 grams of carbohydrates per day. Now, 180 grams of carbohydrates works out to 720 calories (1 gram of carb=4 calories). In a daily diet of 2000 calories, eating the minimum recommended carbs would set the daily percentage of carbs at 27% (540/2000) and the maximum carbs would be 36% (720/2000).

Quote

On their website, the American Diabetes Association nutritionist recommends the following guidelines for diabetics in designing a meal. She says to imagine a dinner plate, and keep carbs (brown rice, whole wheat pasta and 100% whole wheat bread) to no more than 1/4 of the plate at any meal. The non-starchy vegetables should fill 1/2 the plate. For the last quarter of the plate, add about 3 ounces of lean meat, chicken, or fish. She also says that a piece of fresh fruit or 1/2 cup of fruit salad for dessert, or even a "light" yogurt can be added for dessert. She recommends cooking with vegetable oils and cutting back on saturated fat.

If we analyze a typical meal using these guidelines, this is what we find:

Half of a 10.5 inch dinner plate works out to 35 square inches of space to fill with a non starchy vegetable. One can easily fit 2 cups of cooked yellow squash there – that’s about 18 grams of carb.In one quarter of the plate, there is about 15 square inches to fill. That could hold a cup of brown rice easily. That’s about 45 carbs.The last quarter plate would hold 3 oz of lean meat. That’s about 18 grams of protein.For dessert, a piece of fresh fruit – if we went with a medium orange, that’s another 15 grams of carb.Finally, the ADA says you can cook your veggies and protein in vegetable oil. (Forget for the moment that vegetable oils are polyunsaturated, meaning the chemical structure is volatile and easily oxidizes in the presence of heat. This introduces cancer causing free radicals into your food.) Sautéing 2 cups of squash would take about 1 T of canola oil. That’s about 14 grams of fat, and 125 calories.

What is so difficult to understand about breaks down into sugar? Just because you get the sugar from a complex nutritionally dense food does not negate the amount of sugar consumed. All carbohydrates by definition eventually break down into sugar.

It does matter how you get the food. Here's why: if you get the carbohydrates from natural foods, i.e. grains, there is going to be a natural limit to the abundance of the carbohydrates. This isn't true for processed foods. Sugar is found in shit it just should not be found in, and if you don't believe me, just go to the grocery store and look. You'll find HFCS and sugar in a variety of items which would be surprising to most people.

*edit*

That is, you can only eat so much pasta before you're full.

Quote

Furthermore, India and America have similiar obesity rates, yet most Indian's never eat meat. If what you are saying is true, shouldn't we see much more obese Indians than American's? After all, according to you, we eat more meat, therefore we eat healthier. American's eat more meat than anyone else in the world.

As you know there are other markers to health than just weight. Eating no meat/less meat does not correspond with an increase in weight and a drop in overall health or well being. The point is, it has been proven that cultures who eat predominantly animal fat and few grains are healthier and have less incidence of disease than cultures that eat many grains and sugars and little/no meat. On a further note, eating meat does not mean you will be healthy in spite of any other factors. If you eat a lot of meat and a lot of sugar like an average american does at say Mcdonalds in a quarter pounder meal, how healthy do you think the population will be? You also confuse two separate arguments. A healthy diet of grains and meat can coexist as you point out India did in the past and as documentaries like fathead and studies like those done by Dr. Uffe Ravnskov prove. The key is portions.

The problem however is that an Indian diet does not consist solely of grains and leaves and does not adhere to a common vegetarian or vegan diet. Take a look at the indian diet on that page if you will. It contains a lot of vegetables, a lot of protein from various sources such as meat and legumes, and some grains. Not predominantly grains as you first thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_cuisine#Eating_Habitshttp://www.foodbycountry.com/Germany-to-Japan/India.html[/quote]

I'm sorry if I implied that they eat solely grains, I'm not sure I did, but so they still eat a lot of carbohydrates. Many legumes still have carbohydrates, and legumes are eaten with grains to be nutritionally valid. Vegetables themselves also contain a lot of carbohydrates.

By the way, nice job of pointing out the importance of other factors when it comes to health affects whilst ignoring the consequences. Carbohydrates are broken down into sugar for use as energy by the body, which get's stored as fat if that energy is not used. If Americans were more active, the consumption of carbohydrates would be less negative as their presence in the body woudln't be so long-lasting.

Quote

Quote

Besides, are you going to imply that Americans actually follow the food pyramids guidelines? One huge fault of your entire argument so far is that American's don't really eat according to the food pyramid / guidelines by the FDA. American's don't generally get their carbohydrates from fruits, vegetables and grains, they get them from manufactured and processed sugars which are added to foods, or drink it up in soda. I'm also willing to bet they go beyond the daily recommended value.

Read that article above. Even at base recommendation from the FDA or ADA, Americans will consume too many carbohydrates even from all natural sources such as fruits and vegetables.

Perhaps they would consume too many carbohydrates, but would we b e seeing the obesity and diabetic epidemic we are seeing?

Sure, Reagan spent boatloads -- some $2.8 trillion all told -- on the military. And yes, he funneled money and guns to anti-communist rebels like the Nicaraguan Contras and Afghan mujahideen, while lecturing Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that wall. But on the ultimate test of hawkdom -- the willingness to send U.S. troops into harm's way -- Reagan was no bird of prey. He launched exactly one land war, against Grenada, whose army totaled 600 men. It lasted two days. And his only air war -- the 1986 bombing of Libya -- was even briefer. Compare that with George H.W. Bush, who launched two midsized ground operations, in Panama (1989) and Somalia (1992), and one large war in the Persian Gulf (1991). Or with Bill Clinton, who launched three air campaigns -- in Bosnia (1995), Iraq (1998), and Kosovo (1999) -- each of which dwarfed Reagan's Libya bombing in duration and intensity. Do I even need to mention George W. Bush?

Quote

As early as 1982, after Reagan skirmished with Israel, declined to send U.S. troops to Central America, and refused to cut off Western loans to communist Poland, Commentary's Norman Podhoretz declared that neoconservatives were "sinking into a state of near political despair." New York Times columnist William Safire announced that "if Ronald Reagan fails to awake to the hard-liners' anger at his betrayal, he will discover that he has lost his bedrock constituency." By 1984, after Reagan withdrew troops from their peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, Podhoretz moaned that "in the use of military power, Mr. Reagan was much more restrained" than his right-wing supporters had hoped.

But that was nothing compared with the howls of outrage that accompanied Reagan's dovish turn toward the Soviet Union. In 1986, when Reagan would not cancel his second summit with Gorbachev over Moscow's imprisonment of an American journalist, Podhoretz accused him of having "shamed himself and the country" in his "craven eagerness" to give away the nuclear store. Washington Post columnist George Will said the administration had crumpled "like a punctured balloon." When Reagan signed the INF Treaty, most Republicans vying to succeed him came out in opposition. Grassroots conservative leaders established the Anti-Appeasement Alliance to oppose ratification and ran newspaper advertisements comparing Gorbachev to Hitler and Reagan to Neville Chamberlain. Reagan, wailed Will, is "elevating wishful thinking to the status of political philosophy."

Apologies for taking so long to respond, took a bit of a mini break from p/r for a couple of days.

Quote

It does matter how you get the food. Here's why: if you get the carbohydrates from natural foods, i.e. grains, there is going to be a natural limit to the abundance of the carbohydrates. This isn't true for processed foods. Sugar is found in shit it just should not be found in, and if you don't believe me, just go to the grocery store and look. You'll find HFCS and sugar in a variety of items which would be surprising to most people.

I think you very seriously underestimate the amount of carbohydrates in grains and other unprocessed sources of carbohydrates and also the impact they have on the body. To elaborate on that as an example if you were to follow the food pyramids example of a healthy diet and still eat only unprocessed whole grains you would still have problems with blood glucose spikes and all ailments associated with it. In clinical studies a single half cup of all natural pasta has been shown to produce blood glucose levels upwards of 200 mg/dl in non diabetics which is incredibly unhealthy for any person.

Again regardless of nutritional value all carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugar before being absorbed by the bloodstream. High blood sugar is toxic to humans so it only makes sense to avoid foods that spike your blood sugar and seek your nutritional needs from other foods which happens to be the exact opposite of what the FDA and ADA recommend.

Quote

I'm sorry if I implied that they eat solely grains, I'm not sure I did, but so they still eat a lot of carbohydrates. Many legumes still have carbohydrates, and legumes are eaten with grains to be nutritionally valid. Vegetables themselves also contain a lot of carbohydrates.

The point I am making is that the Indian people as a culture never sat down and feasted on grains for all of their nutrition. As you can see from numerous sources Breakfast lunch and dinner consisted of a varying number of legumes, meat, and grains. Not predominantly one or the other and definitely not a lot of either. As an example I tried my best to reconstruct how many carbohydrates would be included in the three meals and snacks and was very lenient and I came up with a estimate of 175 carbohydrates. If my guesstimate is correct then from what I know, an average Indian way back when would fit perfectly into the weight maintenance category of a healthy diet.

Quote

By the way, nice job of pointing out the importance of other factors when it comes to health affects whilst ignoring the consequences. Carbohydrates are broken down into sugar for use as energy by the body, which get's stored as fat if that energy is not used. If Americans were more active, the consumption of carbohydrates would be less negative as their presence in the body woudln't be so long-lasting.

No that is a gross oversimplification of how your body uses glycogen and glucose as a source of fuel. It has been proven that the levels of glycogen and glucose obtained from a recommended American diet are completely out of proportion to how quickly your body needs them as a fuel source. So technically what you are saying is true but because of the rate at which you absorb glucose from food into your bloodstream you could never exercise enough to use all of the glucose, and by the time you may need it, insulin would have converted that it into fat and you would actually be gaining weight while exercising (which happened to me at one point during my weight loss). Because you can only store and use a small portion of glucose for cell and muscle fuel, what little you should be getting from a limited carbohydrate diet will last you until you sleep and eat again. All you do by excessively exercising and also eating a lot of carbs is drain your blood glucose reserves faster, store more fat, and your body then signals your brain that you should eat again earlier than you normally would and the cycle repeats. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that a recommended diet for a healthy adult is in the 300 carb/day area which goes back to the original point which is way too much regardless of who you are or how active you are.

Now on a low carbohydrate diet you would be eating enough complex carbs from fruits, legumes, or grains that you provide just enough glucose to provide fuel for those cells (100-200 complex carbs max/day) or you would then enter ketosis (>50carbs/day) and your body would burn stored fat for energy at an accelerated rate and everything would be working as it should.

It does matter how you get the food. Here's why: if you get the carbohydrates from natural foods, i.e. grains, there is going to be a natural limit to the abundance of the carbohydrates. This isn't true for processed foods. Sugar is found in shit it just should not be found in, and if you don't believe me, just go to the grocery store and look. You'll find HFCS and sugar in a variety of items which would be surprising to most people.

I think you very seriously underestimate the amount of carbohydrates in grains and other unprocessed sources of carbohydrates and also the impact they have on the body. To elaborate on that as an example if you were to follow the food pyramids example of a healthy diet and still eat only unprocessed whole grains you would still have problems with blood glucose spikes and all ailments associated with it. In clinical studies a single half cup of all natural pasta has been shown to produce blood glucose levels upwards of 200 mg/dl in non diabetics which is incredibly unhealthy for any person.

No, I think you just seriously underestimate the amount of carbohydrates in processed foods. In a 500g bag of spaghetti noodles, there are 44g of carbohydrates. In a 12 oz can of Dr. Pepper, there are 40g of sugar. Now, I'm willing to bet most people couldn't come close to finishing this bag of pasta in one sitting. I myself eat quite a bit of spaghetti at a time, and I can't even consume half the bag. Yet, the 12oz of soda are no problem for me, or any other American. Most American's drink at least one of those cans a day, many drink a lot more. Obese people seem to drink even more!

And I'd like to see the evidence that eating half a cup of natural pasta is "incredibly unhealthy" for you. That's true for some people, especially people who can't really digest gluten, but it's definitely not true for everybody. Remember your Fathead, it's about evolution.

Quote

Quote

I'm sorry if I implied that they eat solely grains, I'm not sure I did, but so they still eat a lot of carbohydrates. Many legumes still have carbohydrates, and legumes are eaten with grains to be nutritionally valid. Vegetables themselves also contain a lot of carbohydrates.

The point I am making is that the Indian people as a culture never sat down and feasted on grains for all of their nutrition. As you can see from numerous sources Breakfast lunch and dinner consisted of a varying number of legumes, meat, and grains. Not predominantly one or the other and definitely not a lot of either. As an example I tried my best to reconstruct how many carbohydrates would be included in the three meals and snacks and was very lenient and I came up with a estimate of 175 carbohydrates. If my guesstimate is correct then from what I know, an average Indian way back when would fit perfectly into the weight maintenance category of a healthy diet.

So, what changed between "way back when" and now? Oh right, processed foods, and a more sedentary culture! What didn't go through a major change were the natural sources of carbohydrates they eat / ate.

Quote

Quote

By the way, nice job of pointing out the importance of other factors when it comes to health affects whilst ignoring the consequences. Carbohydrates are broken down into sugar for use as energy by the body, which get's stored as fat if that energy is not used. If Americans were more active, the consumption of carbohydrates would be less negative as their presence in the body woudln't be so long-lasting.

No that is a gross oversimplification of how your body uses glycogen and glucose as a source of fuel. It has been proven that the levels of glycogen and glucose obtained from a recommended American diet are completely out of proportion to how quickly your body needs them as a fuel source. So technically what you are saying is true but because of the rate at which you absorb glucose from food into your bloodstream you could never exercise enough to use all of the glucose, and by the time you may need it, insulin would have converted that it into fat and you would actually be gaining weight while exercising (which happened to me at one point during my weight loss). Because you can only store and use a small portion of glucose for cell and muscle fuel, what little you should be getting from a limited carbohydrate diet will last you until you sleep and eat again. All you do by excessively exercising and also eating a lot of carbs is drain your blood glucose reserves faster, store more fat, and your body then signals your brain that you should eat again earlier than you normally would and the cycle repeats. This wouldn't be a problem except for the fact that a recommended diet for a healthy adult is in the 300 carb/day area which goes back to the original point which is way too much regardless of who you are or how active you are.

Sorry for the gross oversimplification, but are you really going to tell me that American's extremely lazly lifestyle doesn't affect how fat we are? I'm not even talking about exercise necessarily, but just a bout anything which would use energy. Think about Wall-E. Forget about draining your blood glucose levels, but about reducing them. From there, storing fat is not bad / unhealthy in and of itself.

And it's like you don't follow my argument, and insist upon the liberal straw man. My complaint about the poster is that it throws the baby out with the bath water. Why does that poster have pictures of bread, and other perfectly fine dietary items, when there's better, more logical, targets? The problem is not with all carbohydrates, as the poster implies, and ignores the necessary function of carbohydrates. If you took the question the poster asked seriously, "who gives carbohydrates to Diabetics?" and figured diabetics should not eat any carbohydrates, you're pretty much killing the person.

500 grams is just over one pound of spaghetti. On every bag of all natural whole grain spaghetti I just looked up, 1/8 of one pound is one serving and one serving is between 40-50 carbohydrates. I would wager that your average person can consume 2 cups of spaghetti with sauce before being full. Even at that which seems completely reasonable without any other additions, you are consuming just over 100 carbohydrates if you are being reasonable. What we know is that the average man does not eat 2/8 serving of a bag of pasta and will likely eat until they become uncomfortably full and bloated.

http://www.barillaus.com/Pages/Product-Landing.aspx?brandID=3

Quote

And I'd like to see the evidence that eating half a cup of natural pasta is "incredibly unhealthy" for you. That's true for some people, especially people who can't really digest gluten, but it's definitely not true for everybody. Remember your Fathead, it's about evolution.

Any type of spaghetti (or any food with a heaping number of carbohydrates complex or not) will produce a high blood sugar in anyone. High blood sugar puts unnecessary strain on your cardiovascular system and is responsible for insulin resistance, diabetes and as a side effect, obesity. So while you could likely skirt along if you would actually only eat a very small portion of spaghetti without any type of sauce or seasoning, it would still create a blood sugar spike and if repeated you would still suffer from the exact same problem as someone who eats an equal amount of carbohydrates from simple naturally sugar filled sources.

Quote

So, what changed between "way back when" and now? Oh right, processed foods, and a more sedentary culture! What didn't go through a major change were the natural sources of carbohydrates they eat / ate.

No, what has consistently been observed is an increase in living standards and available food and as such every culture eating more of what they already ate in the past. It is even more self evident now that we have a government and nutritional market centered around eating grains and carbohydrates when in the past we ate only a small or medium amount of them.

You also again ignore that all evidence suggests that processed sweeteners affect the body in the same way that sugar from complex carbohydrate sources does.

Quote

Sorry for the gross oversimplification, but are you really going to tell me that American's extremely lazly lifestyle doesn't affect how fat we are? I'm not even talking about exercise necessarily, but just a bout anything which would use energy. Think about Wall-E. Forget about draining your blood glucose levels, but about reducing them. From there, storing fat is not bad / unhealthy in and of itself.

Absolutely. Gary Taubes elaborates on the concept of activity impulse further in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories. Is a person who exercises fervently skinny because they burn calories exercising, or are they naturally genetically lucky to have a body that prefers to fuel their muscles with whatever calories they eat and not store them as fat? After going on a weight loss crusade I was dreadfully discouraged when I was running 20-40 miles a week and not losing weight any faster than if I had sat on my computer all day on a reduced sugar diet as I am now. The article below is amazingly informative on the subject, I suggest you read it.

http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

Quote

And it's like you don't follow my argument, and insist upon the liberal straw man. My complaint about the poster is that it throws the baby out with the bath water. Why does that poster have pictures of bread, and other perfectly fine dietary items, when there's better, more logical, targets? The problem is not with all carbohydrates, as the poster implies, and ignores the necessary function of carbohydrates. If you took the question the poster asked seriously, "who gives carbohydrates to Diabetics?" and figured diabetics should not eat any carbohydrates, you're pretty much killing the person.

No the problem is with all carbohydrates. But more than just carbohydrates it is specifically about quantity consumed. Diabetics and people in its early stages in studies have been able to stop medication and insulin injections by going on a zero/low carb diet and keep their blood sugar as stable as possible all the time. Meanwhile we have an official government organization encouraging people who cannot bring their blood sugar down to eat sugar in an effort to be normal, healthy, and happy when it is directly detrimental to their body's ability to function normally. If you eat a low carb diet and stick with it for as long as you live you will never suffer from Diabetes and a host of other ailments associated with it.

Quote

In a 2004 study published in Diabetes journal, participants were given either the American Diabetes Association recommended moderately high carb diet with a carbohydrate:protein:fat ratio of 55:15:30, or a low carb diet with a carbohydrate:protein:fat ratio of 20:30:50. The mean 24-hour serum blood sugar at the end of the ADA high carb diet was 198 mg/dl. The mean 24-hour serum blood sugar at the end of the low carb diet was 126 mg/dl. The low carb diet resulted in a drop of 36% in mean serum blood sugar as compared to the higher carb diet over the course of the study. Diabetes 53:2375-2382, 2004

No the problem is with all carbohydrates. But more than just carbohydrates it is specifically about quantity consumed.

It's much easier to eat a lot of carbohydrates when those carbohydrates are refined and concentrated. You don't feel as full, if nothing else. And that does make a huge difference, and the fact that you have to go to the clearly wrong position that eating half a cup of pasta is incredibly unhealthy for you should be enough of an indication. Basically, you need to explain to me how I eat a lot of pasta and breads, yet am a slightly-underweight, non-diabetic person. If what you say is absolutely true, I should be fat, unenergetic and suffer from diabetes because I constantly eat food which is "incredibly unhealthy" for me.

And while I eat a lot of carbohydrates from natural sources, I take some vigilance to reduce the intake of how much manufactured sugar I eat.

Quote

You also again ignore that all evidence suggests that processed sweeteners affect the body in the same way that sugar from complex carbohydrate sources does.

But you see, that isn't true. I'm not ignoring it, because there's enough evidence to show that there is a difference. Complex carbohydrates take longer to digest, and thus affect the glucose level in the blood differently. Yes, all the carbohydrates get transformed into blood sugar, but over what period of time? Notice that this allows for exercise, while not completely getting rid of your blood sugar level, and creating the pattern you described. As you deplete your blood sugar levels, it's being replenished by further digestion of the complex carbohydrates. Manufactured sugar, on the other hand, spikes the system and starts the sort of cycle that you described.

And why the fuck do you think I'm arguing that carbohydrates don't cause higher blood sugar levels? I'm arguing against this misconception about natural carbohydrates that you put forward. They do not affect the body in the same way, all sugars are not the same! This affects the human body differently, if in subtle of minor ways. Taking everything into account, that is, the American lifestyle, combined with the source of many American's carbohydrates (manufactured), is much more of an important driving factor in the rise of diabetes and obesity in the country than the amount of carbohydrates that the federal government suggests we eat, which probably isn't very close to how American's actually eat.

*edit*

By the way, I will blame the government for how our food subsidies are set up. We grow way too much corn, which gets turned into way too much HFCS. We need to subsidize more vegetable, lettuce and fruit growing.

Why or how exactly am I wrong? Pasta and other carbohydrate rich food raise blood sugar regardless of their nutritional content. High blood sugar is toxic to your cardiovascular system and will lead to diabetes and plenty of other ailments commonly associated with it. Studies have shown that otherwise healthy adult diabietics can completely eliminate their need for insulin injections and other medications when following a low carbohydrate diet. We know from history and from numerous studies that an extended low carbohydrate diet has no negative health effects because your body can synthesize all the glucose it needs from dietary proteins.

I would go ahead and wager a guess that you have been skinny all of your life and not had problems with obesity. If its true then it would be for the same reason most naturally skinny people are skinny, genetics. However dont try and use just your weight as a marker for health. Just because you are skinny does not mean you don't have diabetes or high cholesterol. We are now seeing a huge spike in the number of skinny diabetic people. Would you care to guess why? Its because high blood sugar, although toxic, wont always make you fat and its why I consider obesity a side effect. It is also why it is so easy to understand why Gary Taubes and other researchers like him observations about high blood sugar and exercise are correct.

Quote

It's much easier to eat a lot of carbohydrates when those carbohydrates are refined and concentrated. You don't feel as full, if nothing else. And that does make a huge difference

No, in fact that has nothing to do with it. Its true if you are eating something like ice cream but if we are talking about all natural grains and other sources of carbohydrate how full you are depends on things like the size of your stomach, dietary fiber, protein content, how much of the food or drink, liquid or solid etc.

Quote

because there's enough evidence to show that there is a difference.

No, there may be a subtle difference somewhere but there has never been any conclusive study that can prove the link between specifically HFCS or other processed sugars and a sharper increase in disease or other health problems when compared to all natural sugar.

Quote

Complex carbohydrates take longer to digest, and thus affect the glucose level in the blood differently. Yes, all the carbohydrates get transformed into blood sugar, but over what period of time?

I don't know where you are getting this information. Studies I read and observations I have performed personally with a blood glucose meter show the same spike in blood sugar whether you eat a cup of pasta or a candy bar an hour after consumption. There is no difference. You will obviously get more or less of what you need because of the varying nutritional content of the food, but it will always be accompanied by a blood sugar spike because of the carbohydrates followed by a normalization of blood sugar by insulin as it converts the sugar into fat.

I would go ahead and wager a guess that you have been skinny all of your life and not had problems with obesity. If its true then it would be for the same reason most naturally skinny people are skinny, genetics. However dont try and use just your weight as a marker for health. Just because you are skinny does not mean you don't have diabetes or high cholesterol. We are now seeing a huge spike in the number of skinny diabetic people. Would you care to guess why? Its because high blood sugar, although toxic, wont always make you fat and its why I consider obesity a side effect. It is also why it is so easy to understand why Gary Taubes and other researchers like him observations about high blood sugar and exercise are correct.

You seem to be forgetting: My argument is that your diet your be based upon genetics, not any standard or norm given out by anyone. My point about my health isn't meant to be a marker for anyone, so once again: please follow my argument and debate me, not some straw man your keep pulling up for this.

And notice, I said skinny and non-diabetic.

Quote

Quote

It's much easier to eat a lot of carbohydrates when those carbohydrates are refined and concentrated. You don't feel as full, if nothing else. And that does make a huge difference

No, in fact that has nothing to do with it. Its true if you are eating something like ice cream but if we are talking about all natural grains and other sources of carbohydrate how full you are depends on things like the size of your stomach, dietary fiber, protein content, how much of the food or drink, liquid or solid etc.

Hey guess what? Natural carbohydrates have a lot of dietary fiber, which makes you feel fuller quicker. It's the refined, processed sugar which has no nutritional value, which you are thinking of. Also, drinks are where a lot of people get sugar from - which you can drink more of.

Quote

Quote

Complex carbohydrates take longer to digest, and thus affect the glucose level in the blood differently. Yes, all the carbohydrates get transformed into blood sugar, but over what period of time?

I don't know where you are getting this information. Studies I read and observations I have performed personally with a blood glucose meter show the same spike in blood sugar whether you eat a cup of pasta or a candy bar an hour after consumption. There is no difference. You will obviously get more or less of what you need because of the varying nutritional content of the food, but it will always be accompanied by a blood sugar spike because of the carbohydrates followed by a normalization of blood sugar by insulin as it converts the sugar into fat.

Google the "glycemic index." It's an index used by diabetics to estimate the affect of food on their blood glucose level, and to manage their diabetes.

The question isn't whether there will be a blood sugar spike, it's a question of how intense and how long it will last. And it should be obvious why this matters.

Speaking of which, I'm going drinking now. I'm going to make sure I pace myself so I don't' get too drunk.

so once again: please follow my argument and debate me, not some straw man your keep pulling up for this.

Alright. Here is the problem it keeps coming down to. Diabetics cannot bring their blood sugar down without extra insulin and sometimes other medications. If a food like pasta which is placed lower on the glycemic index will spike your blood sugar (which it does in all observed incidences), why deal with the detrimental side effects as well as medication and insulin injections if you could avoid the food in the first place? This is the goal of the poster. As I keep repeating, diabetics becomes normal healthy people if they avoid carbohydrates entirely. Not just processed ones.

We know that a high carbohydrate diet will lead to insulin resistance and eventually diabetes as we see now with a large number of the American population. This path leads to where diabetics are now and still struggling with their diabetes because of carbohydrates recommended to them by the government.

Quote

Hey guess what? Natural carbohydrates have a lot of dietary fiber, which makes you feel fuller quicker. It's the refined, processed sugar which has no nutritional value, which you are thinking of. Also, drinks are where a lot of people get sugar from - which you can drink more of.

Fiber does not produce an immediate feeling of fullness. As I said earlier there are several factors which determine whether you feel full at the time of eating. All dietary fiber does is aid in long term digestion which helps you feel full hours after you previous meal.

So yes fiber aids in digestion and reduces the amount of sugar absorbed into your bloodstream but like exercise it does not have a significant enough impact to offset high carbohydrate intake and is best countered by simply avoiding concentrated sources of any carbohydrate.

Quote

Google the "glycemic index." It's an index used by diabetics to estimate the affect of food on their blood glucose level, and to manage their diabetes.

The question isn't whether there will be a blood sugar spike, it's a question of how intense and how long it will last. And it should be obvious why this matters.

I know what the glycemic index is and I also know that it is a guideline (http://www.joslin.org/info/the_glycemic_index_and_diabetes.html) to be used in conjunction with an already low carbohydrate centered diet and it has some big problems like not taking into account that foods categorized as low glucose can and do produce the same glucose readings as foods high in index.

And regardless of all of that, what do you mean by intensity and how long it will last? There is no compartmentalization. Your blood sugar is your blood sugar and if it is high (<150mg/dl) an hour or two hours after a meal then something is definitely wrong whether the meal is pasta or whether it is a candy bar.

Why are we looking at a diabetic diet when trying to come up with the best diet for a non-diabetic person? If I drink 2 beers a day, as a healthy person with a healthy liver, there's several studies which show that will be beneficial to me. However, if I've been an alcoholic, and have destroyed my liver, maybe I shouldn't drink any alcohol. Likewise, as a healthy person with healthy kidneys and pancreas, I can eat a big meal full of pasta and lot of other carbohydrates, and be perfectly fine from it because I haven't pushed my system over the limit to diabetes.

And yes, a high carbohydrate diet will lead to diabetes, but you need to distinguish between types of diabetes, and you have yet to actually qualify the statement that the recommended daily intake of 50% of your caloric intake from carbs, is "too high." Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.

Which is why I said that the poster ignores such things, because it does.

Hey guess what? Natural carbohydrates have a lot of dietary fiber, which makes you feel fuller quicker. It's the refined, processed sugar which has no nutritional value, which you are thinking of. Also, drinks are where a lot of people get sugar from - which you can drink more of.

Fiber does not produce an immediate feeling of fullness. As I said earlier there are several factors which determine whether you feel full at the time of eating. All dietary fiber does is aid in long term digestion which helps you feel full hours after you previous meal.

So yes fiber aids in digestion and reduces the amount of sugar absorbed into your bloodstream but like exercise it does not have a significant enough impact to offset high carbohydrate intake and is best countered by simply avoiding concentrated sources of any carbohydrate.

Can't you just admit this is a point I have in my favor? You're trying to hide behind the fact that there are a lot of variables involved in what makes someone feel full, but it isn't as subjective and varying as you make it out to be. Quit trying to obfuscate the issue. Perform an experiment with yourself. Drink a 12 oz can of soda, see if you feel full and for how long. Then, go eat the equivelant amount of carbohydrates from a banana (I don't care to compute how many banana's that is), and see how full you feel and for how long. Or, eat a lot of pasta, and tell me how long that stays with you.

And I'm noticing your changing what you say a little. Best to avoid "concentrated sources of any carbohydrate." But that's exactly what refined and processed sugars are. Bread's and pasta's are more concentrated than fruit, but the question is whether the human body can handle the load.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Google the "glycemic index." It's an index used by diabetics to estimate the affect of food on their blood glucose level, and to manage their diabetes.

The question isn't whether there will be a blood sugar spike, it's a question of how intense and how long it will last. And it should be obvious why this matters.

I know what the glycemic index is and I also know that it is a guideline (http://www.joslin.org/info/the_glycemic_index_and_diabetes.html) to be used in conjunction with an already low carbohydrate centered diet and it has some big problems like not taking into account that foods categorized as low glucose can and do produce the same glucose readings as foods high in index.

And regardless of all of that, what do you mean by intensity and how long it will last? There is no compartmentalization. Your blood sugar is your blood sugar and if it is high (<150mg/dl) an hour or two hours after a meal then something is definitely wrong whether the meal is pasta or whether it is a candy bar.

There may be problems with the glycemic index, but at the basic of it's foundation is the simple fact that not all carbs affect your blood sugar in the same ways. More complex carbohydrate take longer to digest, provide hours of energy, and don't spike the system like refined sugars. So basically, the glycemic index uses as a basic starting point something you reject: that all carbohydrates are the same and affect the body in the same way.

Why are we looking at a diabetic diet when trying to come up with the best diet for a non-diabetic person? If I drink 2 beers a day, as a healthy person with a healthy liver, there's several studies which show that will be beneficial to me. However, if I've been an alcoholic, and have destroyed my liver, maybe I shouldn't drink any alcohol. Likewise, as a healthy person with healthy kidneys and pancreas, I can eat a big meal full of pasta and lot of other carbohydrates, and be perfectly fine from it because I haven't pushed my system over the limit to diabetes.

What is the difference between a diabetic and a healthy person? Unless the disease is passed on genetically, all it is is a resistance to the effects of insulin. There is no difference in how a diabetic processes or absorbs carbohydrates, just how their bodies try to stabilize their blood sugar afterwards. But lets think this through. If you admit that a diet rich in carbohydrates leads to diabetes, and abstaining from all carbohydrates prevents the occurrence of any problems, then how does it make sense that some carbohydrates affect the body differently and can be eaten in excess without causing problems? The end result is the same in every clinical study. Carbohydrates lead to high blood sugar, consistent high blood sugar leads to insulin resistance, insulin resistance leads to diabetes and by time you are also likely obese.

Yes someone like you may be able to stave off obesity longer than someone like me would if we were on a high carbohydrate diet. You would probably also not gain as much weight as someone like I would. But the end result remains the same regardless of how you want to categorize carbs as good or bad.

And yes, a high carbohydrate diet will lead to diabetes, but you need to distinguish between types of diabetes, and you have yet to actually qualify the statement that the recommended daily intake of 50% of your caloric intake from carbs, is "too high." Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.

Either type of diabetic respond to a reduced or no carbohydrate diet the same way. Whether your body does not naturally produce enough or you are insulin resistant, eating food that does not raise your blood sugar at all literally reverses the damage done and returns normally sensitive diabetics into normal and functioning people without insulin or medication.

Quote

Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.

The problem is that when you try to compartmentalize carbohydrates like you are doing now, you make it harder for people to understand the danger of high blood sugar in itself. So yeah pasta scores better on the glycemic index than a candy bar because it has little fat, medium levels of protein, and a small amount of fiber. On the flip side, a candy bar and a bowl of pasta produce the same or comparable blood sugar levels an hour after a meal is eaten. Whether you are full or satisfied is irrelevant. The damage is done and if you repeat the process over and over again you will become diabetic.

So I will say again, sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. Sugar raises blood glucose. until you provide me a study that conclusively proves processed sugar any differently affects the body than normal sugar I am going to not respond to this anymore. The reason I am such a stickler on this is because even organizations that agree with your line of reasoning agree that sugar as a whole is the danger, not specifically hfcs or other processed sweeteners.

Quote

Quit trying to obfuscate the issue. Perform an experiment with yourself. Drink a 12 oz can of soda, see if you feel full and for how long. Then, go eat the equivelant amount of carbohydrates from a banana (I don't care to compute how many banana's that is), and see how full you feel and for how long. Or, eat a lot of pasta, and tell me how long that stays with you.

And I'm noticing your changing what you say a little. Best to avoid "concentrated sources of any carbohydrate." But that's exactly what refined and processed sugars are. Bread's and pasta's are more concentrated than fruit, but the question is whether the human body can handle the load.

Maybe we just misunderstood each other on this part. I agree eating pure sugar as in candy is much worse than eating its equivalent in bananas, but for the wrong reasons. A candy bar will lack any type of nutrition that would keep you full whereas a bannana has a lot of things going for it nutrition wise, still contains a lot of sugar which causes the same problem the candy bar will, on top of not satisfying you. Where we disagree is how dangerous it is to your long term well being. Your body can handle high doses of sugar for a little while, but you made my point. The body cannot handle the load and eventually you develop diabetes because of it.

then how does it make sense that some carbohydrates affect the body differently and can be eaten in excess without causing problems?

Where did I ever say they can be eaten in excess? I'm pointing out that "excess" is different for a diabetic than it is a healthy person.

Quote

Quote

And yes, a high carbohydrate diet will lead to diabetes, but you need to distinguish between types of diabetes, and you have yet to actually qualify the statement that the recommended daily intake of 50% of your caloric intake from carbs, is "too high." Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.

Either type of diabetic respond to a reduced or no carbohydrate diet the same way. Whether your body does not naturally produce enough or you are insulin resistant, eating food that does not raise your blood sugar at all literally reverses the damage done and returns normally sensitive diabetics into normal and functioning people without insulin or medication.

Sorry, I had a brain fart and wrote types of diabetes, and meant types of carbohydrates.

Quote

Quote

Furthermore, American's receive a lot of refined sugars and sugars which quickly spike the system, add no nutritional value, which all are known factors to increase the risk of diabetes.

The problem is that when you try to compartmentalize carbohydrates like you are doing now, you make it harder for people to understand the danger of high blood sugar in itself. So yeah pasta scores better on the glycemic index than a candy bar because it has little fat, medium levels of protein, and a small amount of fiber. On the flip side, a candy bar and a bowl of pasta produce the same or comparable blood sugar levels an hour after a meal is eaten. Whether you are full or satisfied is irrelevant. The damage is done and if you repeat the process over and over again you will become diabetic.

Soo, I'm wrong because some people may be not be able to follow it?

And whether you are full or satisfied is relevant. I don't know why you keep thinking this. If you aren't full or satisfied, you go back for more; and more very often means more carbohydrates. The cycle you talk about is much more vicious with sweets and other concentrated sources of carbohydrates. Furthermore, a lack of nutrients, found with processed/refined carbohydrates, helps make you fatter and more prone to insulin resistance.

Quote

So I will say again, sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. Sugar raises blood glucose. until you provide me a study that conclusively proves processed sugar any differently affects the body than normal sugar I am going to not respond to this anymore. The reason I am such a stickler on this is because even organizations that agree with your line of reasoning agree that sugar as a whole is the danger, not specifically hfcs or other processed sweeteners.

You're narrowing the parameters too much (which has been my argument the entire time). Yes, on one level, sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. But you for some reason don't want to look at the overall picture of how carbohydrates affect a person in different ways. I've pointed to studies, I've pointed to common medical practices, I've pointed to evolutionary biology, I've pointed to simple common sense. In many of these area's, we agree, you just stubbornly want to disagree. You keep thinking I'm saying "you're wrong," when all I'm saying is "yes, but there's also this to consider."

Quote

Quote

Quit trying to obfuscate the issue. Perform an experiment with yourself. Drink a 12 oz can of soda, see if you feel full and for how long. Then, go eat the equivelant amount of carbohydrates from a banana (I don't care to compute how many banana's that is), and see how full you feel and for how long. Or, eat a lot of pasta, and tell me how long that stays with you.

And I'm noticing your changing what you say a little. Best to avoid "concentrated sources of any carbohydrate." But that's exactly what refined and processed sugars are. Bread's and pasta's are more concentrated than fruit, but the question is whether the human body can handle the load.

Maybe we just misunderstood each other on this part. I agree eating pure sugar as in candy is much worse than eating its equivalent in bananas, but for the wrong reasons. A candy bar will lack any type of nutrition that would keep you full whereas a bannana has a lot of things going for it nutrition wise, still contains a lot of sugar which causes the same problem the candy bar will, on top of not satisfying you. Where we disagree is how dangerous it is to your long term well being. Your body can handle high doses of sugar for a little while, but you made my point. The body cannot handle the load and eventually you develop diabetes because of it.

Last time I checked, we don't know exactly what kind of load the body can handle. Nor do we know how this holds true for everybody. Either way, the human body evolved to handle carbohydrates, and their complete demonization by you is ridiculous. You can't just lump a candy bar and a banana together based upon the fact that your body will process sugar out of it. I also wasn't aware that doctors had actually diagnosed what actually causes a person to stop producing enough insulin. Therefor, you can't say that high blood sugar alone is responsible for diabetes, though you can say it is a necessary component. For all you know, the nutrients that come along with a balanced diet prevent the body from breaking down and not be able to produce insulin (please correct me here if you have evidence to the contrary), meaning the spike in blood sugar caused by eating fruits, vegetables, starches, etc, are able to be handled by the body in a more or less safe manner (you can still gain weight, but that's why you moderate yourself).

I dont recall any studies that focus on obesity rates in prisons and google is not turning up much.

I know they eat a 2000-3000 calorie diet and in some prisons can use received or earned money on snacks and other foods. If I were to guess I would say that inmate populations look about the same as the average person in the US is now with the majority being slightly overweight or obese.

Take a look at this:http://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/county-32316-served-inmates.html

Based on that meal plan I input it into my personal calorie and nutrition tracker and everything looked about right if you want to be fat.

Last time I checked, we don't know exactly what kind of load the body can handle. Nor do we know how this holds true for everybody.

True, but we can reasonably estimate. The average person only needs 100-150 grams of carbohydrates a day, and possibly more/less than that depending on activity level and BMI (Basal Metabolic Intake, not that body mass index bullshit).

I wish I had time right now to find some studies for you that back this claim up, but these estimates come from athletes and hardcore (intelligent) health & exercise freaks that know their bodies inside & out, and are free of the special interests that so many scientific studies are subject to. After two years of experimenting with my diet and using an Excel spreadsheet for tracking macronutrient intake, I've come to agree with those estimates as well.

The FDA gets lobbied just like any other government organization. Do you think companies like Kellogg aren't doing their damndest to protect the federal guidelines that claim you should be eating more of their products? Hell, studies claiming that eggs were bad for you didn't start coming out until cereal became a popular breakfast food!

You can't just lump a candy bar and a banana together based upon the fact that your body will process sugar out of it, mmeaning the spike in blood sugar caused by eating fruits, vegetables, starches, etc, are able to be handled by the body in a more or less safe manner (you can still gain weight, but that's why you moderate yourself).

Also true; it's better to eat an orange than drink orange juice, as the fiber in the orange will slow down the digestion and releasing of carbohydrates into the bloodstream, whereas the orange juice is basically a sugar bomb. Fructose is also predisposed to being stored as liver glycogen instead of muscle glycogen, the former of which can lead to fat gain. Granted, this gain can be minimized if you moderate yourself like you said, but I just wanted to highlight the differences between carbohydrate types.

I wish I could say more, but as I'm short on time I'll just end with two posts by Robb Wolf, a sports nutritionist that was fired from his last job when he started suggesting changes to the "Zone" diet that the company had been making money off of for years:

The FDA gets lobbied just like any other government organization. Do you think companies like Kellogg aren't doing their damndest to protect the federal guidelines that claim you should be eating more of their products? Hell, studies claiming that eggs were bad for you didn't start coming out until cereal became a popular breakfast food!

I don't support any dietary guidelines by the government. However, libertarians want to blame everything on the government, as if simply because the FDA recommends 50% of caloric intake by carbohydrates, American's are getting fatter and more diabetic. Most American's probably get way more carbohydrates than recommended, and from sources which are not recommended, nor do they get nearly enough exercise/activity. This is what I was objecting to, because the story is not that simple. More importantly, it seems that where the government is actually playing an agent in our diet (through subsidization), isn't getting the attention it should if people are concerned about what the government recommends.

I'd also like to say that not all of us need to or want to be at "peak" performance, At some point, any argument about diet has to come down to how you want to live, and to what is actually "unhealthy" vs. "not-as-healthy." More carbs may add a little more fat to the body, but why is that in-and-of-itself a bad thing?

You can't just lump a candy bar and a banana together based upon the fact that your body will process sugar out of it, mmeaning the spike in blood sugar caused by eating fruits, vegetables, starches, etc, are able to be handled by the body in a more or less safe manner (you can still gain weight, but that's why you moderate yourself).

Also true; it's better to eat an orange than drink orange juice, as the fiber in the orange will slow down the digestion and releasing of carbohydrates into the bloodstream, whereas the orange juice is basically a sugar bomb. Fructose is also predisposed to being stored as liver glycogen instead of muscle glycogen, the former of which can lead to fat gain. Granted, this gain can be minimized if you moderate yourself like you said, but I just wanted to highlight the differences between carbohydrate types.

Well this is pretty much what I've been trying to talk about. NR is adamant that all carbohydrates are the same, but they just aren't.

Take a look at this:http://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/county-32316-served-inmates.html

Based on that meal plan I input it into my personal calorie and nutrition tracker and everything looked about right if you want to be fat.

http://img651.imageshack.us/i/prisonmeal.png/

http://img197.imageshack.us/i/prisnfood2.png/

Holy fuck, look at how much sodium they're getting. Though, since it's all processed foods, that shouldn't be too surprising...

It's also a little hard to know what each person drinks. I assume the inmates can still drink water if they choose to, and those fruit drinks are probably a "great" source of HFCS and other refined sugars.

I'd also like to say that not all of us need to or want to be at "peak" performance, At some point, any argument about diet has to come down to how you want to live, and to what is actually "unhealthy" vs. "not-as-healthy." More carbs may add a little more fat to the body, but why is that in-and-of-itself a bad thing?

It only is if you're obsessed with "peak" performance, like I am. :) Though ultimately, your sentiments are why I don't preach about healthy lifestyles. People are going live their lives however they want, regardless of anything I have to say. Personally, I get far more satisfaction out of reaching the exercise goals I set for myself, being <10% bodyfat, and just overall well-being and rarely being sick/ill than I would get from any tasty meal.

I just had an ex of a friend call me a socialist because I said that the Constitution could become obsolete or no longer applicable to this country's government in the near future (near future meaning the next few decades).

I was going to post this in the GD chat thread but then realized its place is probably here.

Here's something that makes me angry:I just read in the newspaper that there's a religious group called Team Exodus visiting my city. They're standing in the town trying to convert by-passers to Christianity. I dislike it when people try to "save" other people, because I completely hate it when someone tries to force their belief onto me, so this by itself is a bit annoying in my eyes. (Though I don't have anything against religious people in general, I want to make that clear - I just don't want them in my face with their religion when I haven't asked for it.) But these people just take it too far. What upsets me the most is that they save little children without their parents' permission, because "the only permission we need is God's" and "if God want them to come to us we can't send them away, that's what the Bible says." That is just wrong. Children are so easy to convince (the group said that themselves, even) that they barely even have a choice to make. They're going to believe what they are told. And it's their parents' choice whether they want them to hear it or not.They also tried to save a young woman whose father recently passed away. They did it through praying - and not just praying FOR her father, they used a CELLPHONE to CALL him and pray TOGETHER with him. I can't believe there are people who think that would work. This group is totally nuts in my eyes! (Whether or not the woman was saved isn't said in the article.)

A little bit of both. I see that political actors in most if not all government institutions in the US are becoming really comfortable with the boundaries and loopholes of their respective institutions; in that way, the Constitution is on its way to becoming an obsolete check on government power.

On the other hand, in order to curb such a trend, perhaps the Constitution should be overhauled or replaced altogether, in order to put new/better constraints on the institutions. Obviously stuff like freedom of speech, press, and religion would remain; it would simply be a rewrite of the government itself and the functions and powers allotted to it.

On the other hand, in order to curb such a trend, perhaps the Constitution should be overhauled or replaced altogether, in order to put new/better constraints on the institutions. Obviously stuff like freedom of speech, press, and religion would remain; it would simply be a rewrite of the government itself and the functions and powers allotted to it.

I've always thought this would be a good idea. Those who drafted it in the 18th century couldn't possibly have predicted what life would hold and what government would be like today. It does seem outdated today

I was going to post this in the GD chat thread but then realized its place is probably here.

Here's something that makes me angry:I just read in the newspaper that there's a religious group called Team Exodus visiting my city. They're standing in the town trying to convert by-passers to Christianity. I dislike it when people try to "save" other people, because I completely hate it when someone tries to force their belief onto me, so this by itself is a bit annoying in my eyes. (Though I don't have anything against religious people in general, I want to make that clear - I just don't want them in my face with their religion when I haven't asked for it.) But these people just take it too far. What upsets me the most is that they save little children without their parents' permission, because "the only permission we need is God's" and "if God want them to come to us we can't send them away, that's what the Bible says." That is just wrong. Children are so easy to convince (the group said that themselves, even) that they barely even have a choice to make. They're going to believe what they are told. And it's their parents' choice whether they want them to hear it or not.They also tried to save a young woman whose father recently passed away. They did it through praying - and not just praying FOR her father, they used a CELLPHONE to CALL him and pray TOGETHER with him. I can't believe there are people who think that would work. This group is totally nuts in my eyes! (Whether or not the woman was saved isn't said in the article.)

Sounds like a good time for a holy war. It seems like there should be other Christians offended by this sort of nonsense.

@PLM: Agreed. No modern country should adhere to a constitution that's nearly three hundred years old (think about that: at least a quarter of a millennium, at most a third), especially considering the rapidity with which developments have been made in that time.

On the other hand, in order to curb such a trend, perhaps the Constitution should be overhauled or replaced altogether, in order to put new/better constraints on the institutions. Obviously stuff like freedom of speech, press, and religion would remain; it would simply be a rewrite of the government itself and the functions and powers allotted to it.

I've always thought this would be a good idea. Those who drafted it in the 18th century couldn't possibly have predicted what life would hold and what government would be like today. It does seem outdated today

Is it about predictions? I thought it was about universal human values. The US Constitution itself was based on *much* older document from the 13th century. Who was it who said "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance"? I'd say that included knowing the history and origins of one's country i.e. England, the peasant's revolt, the Magna Carta, the English Bill or Rights, Great Britain, religious pilgrims seeking freedom, people seeking freedom from arrogant government, the formation of the UN by the second world war victors (Britain, the US, Russia et al.) etc. But then that takes effort I suppose.

Indeed. Americans are rather selective not only of what they remember, but how they remember it. In addition, I feel as though we take the "constant vigilance" bit too far, to the point where any cooperation between the government and its people is needlessly difficult.

Last week, the U.S. occupation of Iraq officially ceased being a combat mission as the military entered the stability phase of its operations. Here are some of the major victories of the seven-and-a-half-year war:

Oct. 11, 2002: In the most crucial victory of the campaign, the Bush administration wins enough congressional votes to authorize warApr. 12, 2003: Statue of Iraqi track star Taffar Al Saffar toppled in front of Mosul Boys & Girls ClubNov. 27, 2003: President Bush absentmindedly gnaws at prop Thanksgiving turkey while watching The New Three Stooges cartoon on portable DVD playerOct. 17, 2004: Anger over the invasion and daily bombings spurs the creation of al-Qaeda in Iraq, finally producing the enemy we need to justify the warNov. 7, 2004: The second, and best, Battle of Fallujah beginsNov. 11, 2006: A drone aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles foils a carefully orchestrated plan to wed Hakim Jassar al-Rawi and Sanaa HaydarDec. 30, 2006: Iraqi officials execute the most convincing of Saddam Hussein's look-alikesMay. 2007: 121 U.S. troops die, which is way less than 500

Chile's president, in a token of gratitude of what Germany did to support the trapped miners in the coal mine, wrote those words in the Golden Book of visits without a clue that the Germans associate that phrase with their Nazi past. (That phrase started the old National Anthem.)

As your Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, I'm grateful to have this opportunity to reach out to the people of Wisconsin and draw some distinctions between myself—a D.C. outsider—and Russ Feingold. The incumbent is a classic tax-and-spend liberal who, if elected, will increase the deficit even further. But most importantly, Russ Feingold is a career politician who knows exactly where to find our nation's capital on a map.

Me? I don't have the slightest idea. If somebody asked me right now where Washington, D.C. is, I would say north, but that's really just a shot in the dark. I am literally clueless.

You see, Russ Feingold has been a senator for nearly 20 years. He knows the Beltway backwards and forwards. Heck, I bet he could even tell you which state Washington, D.C. is in. I, on the other hand, don't even know what the "D.C." stands for, and I never will. I'll die before I acquire that information, and that is my promise to you.

Is D.C. where Mount Rushmore is? Beats me. Ask Russ Feingold.

Truth be told, I never even heard the name "Washington, D.C." until I decided to run for the Senate. When I am elected, I will have no idea how to get there or where I'm supposed to go. Will there be buildings there? Is it temperate, rainy, hot, or arid? Do people speak English in this place, this Washington, D.C.?

I haven't the foggiest. But you know who does? You know who probably knows what year Washington, D.C. was founded and who it's named after? Russ Feingold, geography whiz and soon-to-be-former senator from the great state of Wisconsin.

If, in fact, Wisconsin is even technically a state. Is it? To tell you the truth, I'm not 100 percent certain America is made up of states. We might be living in a fiefdom, for all I know.

Am I spelling that right? "Wisconsin." It looks weird written out.

What I do know is that my opponent is a liberal, he'll raise your taxes, and he didn't vote for financial reform because he didn't think it went far enough. Now let me ask you a question: Isn't it time you elected an outsider who doesn't even know what casting a vote means? Someone who doesn't know the number of U.S. senators or whether they are appointed by some kind of special committee?

Ladies and gentlemen, isn't it time you elected someone who only learned five minutes ago that there are three branches of government, not 14?

Once again: Russ Feingold could point out Washington, D.C. with his eyes closed, and I have never quite grasped the difference between a map and a light-up globe. That is the difference I bring to the race, and that is the kind of leadership we need.

For the past 17 years Russ Feingold has done nothing but let down the people of this great state, or territory, or place, or whatever this is. He's a D.C. insider who has well-thought-out positions on issues. I don't know what issues are.

I want your vote, if that is a thing, and I want a lot of them—as many as you can spare. Perhaps you could mail them to me. I don't know.

While Russ Feingold likes to talk about how he's worked across the aisle and fostered relationships with both John McCain and members of the House of Representatives to pass campaign finance reform, I am proud to say that, as a political outsider, I could not begin to tell you what an aisle is or how the House of Representatives is remotely involved. Furthermore, who the heck is John McCain?

Here is what I know: Washington, D.C. is far away. Outer space is farther away. And Caesar salad is a kind of salad. What more do you need?

What we don't need is Russ Feingold, who is a Democrat capable of conjugating verbs and composing thoughts in sentence form. I'll be honest, I have absolutely no clue what I've been saying here this entire time. What is time? Where am I? Who are you? How do telescopes work, and why am I writing this right now? I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.

Why has Andy not started a thread on the newly announced military/naval co-operationt between the British and the French. Including bilingual aircraft carriers that both nations can land their planes on.

If Other Industries Were As Evil as the RIAA (http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_147_if-other-industries-were-as-evil-as-riaa/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CrackedRSS+%28Cracked%3A+All+Posts%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)

As I said, it was just for a chuckle and was said tongue and cheek. I didn't think it would be taken serious. I didn't even get a chance to mention how racist people are who are dreaming of a White Christmas. :tick2:

Sorry you took it that way. I guess I forget people don't know that I use humor in almost everything I do.I would be quite frightened of anyone who could actually write something like that in a serious manner.As others have said, I could have just put it in this thread and perhaps it would have gotten a laugh.I posted it on a Rush board I have posted on for 5 years. I have over 20,000 posts there and everyone to a man knew it was me being me. It was taken as I meant without one person thinking it otherwise. I guess being a class clown can be misunderstood. I thought of the term Black Friday and ran with it.You should hear what I could come up with for White Christmas, but I will leave that to the imagination.

As I said, it was just for a chuckle and was said tongue and cheek. I didn't think it would be taken serious. I didn't even get a chance to mention how racist people are who are dreaming of a White Christmas. :tick2:

As I said, it was just for a chuckle and was said tongue and cheek. I didn't think it would be taken serious. I didn't even get a chance to mention how racist people are who are dreaming of a White Christmas. :tick2:

FWIW tick, I immediately saw the humor and complete lack of seriousness in that post. I thought it was damned funny and knew right away that there was absolutely no way in hell you'd have posted something like that as ANYTHING but humor.

FWIW tick, I immediately saw the humor and complete lack of seriousness in that post. I thought it was damned funny and knew right away that there was absolutely no way in hell you'd have posted something like that as ANYTHING but humor.

FWIW tick, I immediately saw the humor and complete lack of seriousness in that post. I thought it was damned funny and knew right away that there was absolutely no way in hell you'd have posted something like that as ANYTHING but humor.

No one thought it was serious.

Did you read the responses? They were more ridiculous they what I wrote. Has no one figured out who I am yet?

FWIW tick, I immediately saw the humor and complete lack of seriousness in that post. I thought it was damned funny and knew right away that there was absolutely no way in hell you'd have posted something like that as ANYTHING but humor.

I talked about the movie fat-head a lot when I used to post those articles about the 2010 dietary guidelines and how our societies condemnation of saturated fat is unjustified. Fortunately, Fat-Head just finally came out on Hulu and you can watch it there:

When looking into free speech info for the WBC thread, I stumbled across this. It's audio of the oral arguments in Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell. It doesn't pertain directly to the WBC matter, so I didn't post it there, but it's great insight into how the infliction of emotional distress is viewed by the courts.

As an aside, I didn't know that they made these available. Listening to these really gives you an appreciation for how nerve-racking it would be to spend 30 minutes arguing in front of these people. Any preparation you might have made is worthless when they start grilling you with some tough question. Big balls seem to be in order.

I just watched some more clips of O'Reilly. I don't get why that guy is still on tv. What a ignorant lieing bastard.

Most watched news show in Amerika.

As for the atheist, I think he was right about something. A helluva lot of the Americans that profess themselves to be Christians don't really buy into it. Plenty of them like to think there's a God, and a few don't really even believe that. Looking at the discrepancy between professed atheists here and in Europe, I'd be willing to be that the numbers are a lot closer than they appear, it's just that Europeans have the balls to admit what Americans won't.

3 of my friends are in prison and one is missing, I should have been there, I'm the one who bitched most and started protests in college but now I'm safely away from it all sipping my diet coke and reading about it on the net :(

3 of my friends are in prison and one is missing, I should have been there, I'm the one who bitched most and started protests in college but now I'm safely away from it all sipping my diet coke and reading about it on the net :(

Maybe you could help leaking info out and publishing on Twitter et al. I dunno.

I'm writing what we call "recruiting articles" as we call them, it's been used and some people like them but that's not really like being there and getting tear gassed, 6 people so far beaten to death, this is the biggest attempt of revolution our lazy asses has ever tried.

More senseless hysteria. According to the Dallas Women's foundation, 38,000 child sex workers would be shipped into Dallas to meet the demands of pervy football fans. Seriously, doesn't anybody question anything any more?

The US seems to be slowly falling to pieces. For the media to even publish such drivel is horrendous.

Although, the number one story in Australia at the moment is our leader of the Federal Opposition saying to a soldier that "shit happens" in war when talking about a casualty. Seriously, this journo from one of our major TV stations ambushed the guy. His reaction is priceless:

Of course it's very blunt, but he does have (sort of) a point. When the first Dutch casualty fell in Afghanistan, the newspapers and television were full of stories that we should retreat and how tragic everything was. But come on, there was a war going on. You can expect some people to die. Were we sending them in expecting them to have the best time of their lives and all come back completely healthy?

Also, no one seemed to give a damn when the reports came out detailing the deaths of a lot of innocent civilians (not by Dutch troops btw, but still...).

The Catholic Church has approved an iPhone app that helps guide worshippers through confession.

The Confession program has gone on sale through iTunes for £1.19 ($1.99).

Described as "the perfect aid for every penitent", it offers users tips and guidelines to help them with the sacrament.

Now senior church officials in both the UK and US have given it their seal of approval, in what is thought to be a first.

The app takes users through the sacrament - in which Catholics admit their wrongdoings - and allows them to keep track of their sins.

It also allows them to examine their conscience based on personalised factors such as age, sex and marital status - but it is not intended to replace traditional confession entirely.

Instead, it encourages users to understand their actions and then visit their priest for absolution.Continue reading the main story“Start Quote

Our desire is to invite Catholics to engage in their faith through digital technology”Patrick LeinenLittle iApps

"Our desire is to invite Catholics to engage in their faith through digital technology," Patrick Leinen of developer Little iApps told Reuters.

The launch comes shortly after Pope Benedict XVI gave urging to Christians to embrace digital communication and make their presence felt online.

In his World Communications Address on 24 January, he said it was not a sin to use social networking sites - and particularly encouraged young Catholics to share important information with each other online.

"I invite young people above all to make good use of their presence in the digital world," he said.

He warned them to keep in mind that digital communication was part of a bigger picture, however.

"It is important always to remember that virtual contact cannot and must not take the place of direct human contact with people at every level of our lives."

Confession's developers, who are based in Indiana, said they took the Pope's words to heart when they were preparing the application for public consumption.

"Our goal with this project is to offer a digital application that is truly 'new media at the service of the word'," said the company.

The firm said the app was developed with assistance from several priests and had been given the church's imprimatur by Bishop Kevin Rhoades of the Diocese of Fort Wayne in Indiana.

A spokesperson from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales told BBC News the app was a "useful tool to help people prepare for the Sacrament of Reconciliation".

"The Church believes in embracing new technology and this creative app will hopefully help people to make a good confession."

It is thought to be the first time the church has approved a mobile phone application, although it is not entirely unfamiliar with the digital world.

In 2007, the Vatican launched its own YouTube channel.

Two years later created a Facebook application that lets users send virtual postcards featuring the pontiff.

You miss the point. It was an interview for Archive of American Television; not an HBO special. What we normally get to see is the streamlined and well crafted snippet of the man's thoughts. This was the real deal.

Apparently the House is discussing the possibility of gov't shutdown in March.

Not at all surprising. In fact, quite predictable. Naturally it has nothing to do with the actual spending, but more about trying to stick it to Obama. The last time they tried this they got their asses handed to them by a fairly popular Clinton. They really came off looking like assholes and idiots. With Obama appearing somewhat week at the moment, they're looking at is a means of keeping the base energized. If they can take him on and win, it'll look quite well for them.

Personally, I doubt it'll work. For one thing, Obama's actually been doing a pretty good job of playing the reasonable type. He's looking fairly even-handed in his dealings with the GOP. I suspect he'll be able to play that against them. Plus, he's got history on his side. People will feel naturally inclined to side with the Executive as they did last time. Lastly, the White House will be in the passive role. It'll be the Republican congress that actually shuts things down, and that'll also look bad to the people who are hurt by it.

when will there be a candidate that appeals to us moderate republicans?

When the hardcore rightwing base of your party shut up.

Or when the moderates grow a pair, and stop pandering to the wingnuts for the sake of a few votes.

we honestly don't pander, i have been going to lengths to distance myself from the types of palin, etc. I guarantee you that the only way that the republican party has a chance of beating obama in 2012 is to nominate a representative that isn't a right wing nutjob.

I was curious about why every doctor in Amerika is so gung-ho to put everybody on SSRI's. Not even my cynical ass would think that they're all on the take. Most of them actually do want what's best for their patients. Found this article which seems pretty solid. You don't have to buy anybody's support. You just have to buy enough time with them to get your foot in the door. It's another fine example of a situation that causes a great deal of trouble that nobody wants to fix.

When you ask doctors whether this kind of drug marketing is effective, the answer is always the same: "It doesn't influence me at all. They're not going to buy my soul with a laser pointer." In a recent syndicated newspaper column, one doctor commented, "I blame the pin-striped MBAs, who mistakenly believe that physicians are going to prescribe certain medicines because the company plies them with pens." ...A recent letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association illustrates how effective drug advertising can be. It describes a patient who came into the hospital with an infected insect bite. The intern who first saw the patient first sensibly wanted to prescribe a nice, inexpensive penicillin, which is the drug of choice for a minor infection. But the resident overruled the intern and favored a more "modern" choice for this "severely" ill patient. He decided the patient had to have a brand-new antibiotic at $183 a day.

I was curious about why every doctor in Amerika is so gung-ho to put everybody on SSRI's. Not even my cynical ass would think that they're all on the take. Most of them actually do want what's best for their patients. Found this article which seems pretty solid. You don't have to buy anybody's support. You just have to buy enough time with them to get your foot in the door. It's another fine example of a situation that causes a great deal of trouble that nobody wants to fix.

When you ask doctors whether this kind of drug marketing is effective, the answer is always the same: "It doesn't influence me at all. They're not going to buy my soul with a laser pointer." In a recent syndicated newspaper column, one doctor commented, "I blame the pin-striped MBAs, who mistakenly believe that physicians are going to prescribe certain medicines because the company plies them with pens." ...A recent letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association illustrates how effective drug advertising can be. It describes a patient who came into the hospital with an infected insect bite. The intern who first saw the patient first sensibly wanted to prescribe a nice, inexpensive penicillin, which is the drug of choice for a minor infection. But the resident overruled the intern and favored a more "modern" choice for this "severely" ill patient. He decided the patient had to have a brand-new antibiotic at $183 a day.

Just part of the current paradigm. Hard work and struggle is seen as bad while quick fixes are seen as ideal.

Pat Robertson has come up with a new theory as to why liberals support abortion rights — it’s because they want to put lesbians and straight women on “a level playing field.”

On a recent episode of The 700 Club, discussing the battle over federal funding for Planned Parenthood, Robertson says President Obama supports the organization because of what the antigay minister calls the Left’s “culture of death.” Then Robertson says to cohost Terry Meeuwsen, “If a woman is a lesbian, what advantage does she have over a married woman? Or what deficiency does she have?”

Meeuwsen replies, “Well, she can’t have children” — ignoring the fact that lesbians can and do have children. Robertson says, “That’s exactly right. And so if these married women don’t have children, if they abort their babies, then that kind of puts them on a level playing field.”

Since America seems happy to pin 911 100% on OBL's shoulders, he also gets the credit* for obliterating the US economy. From a strategic standpoint, it's absolutely phenomenal. 424 billion just on the Dept of Homeland Security. Trillions of added dollars waging two wars. Massive increases in intelligence expenditures. A significant loss of freedom. All of this a direct result of a fairly inexpensive operation. Worse still, most of it was completely unnecessary. Throwing money pointlessly at a problem to avoid the appearance of not throwing enough.

*Partial credit, technically. Having W in office helped him far more than he could ever have anticipated.

Besides the fact that people in the US have to drive way more because there's no public transportation.

Not necessarily just because there's no public transportation, but we have a terrible sprawl problem. Our neighborhoods and houses are primarily set up to where you basically are forced to drive if you want to go anywhere. Everyone has to have big driveways, SUVs, and separation.

(http://static.flickr.com/3076/2910702880_a4d1acf345.jpg)

I doubt you really find many neighborhoods like this outside of North America. It's primarily why we consume so much more energy than the rest of the world, I can only assume.

Part of the difference is that European towns were built around transportation hubs, and not the other way around. Sprawl exists in other countries, and a big chunk of Europe lives outside of major cities, but they're all very close to a rail station. Rural towns in America are close to interstates.

The bigger concern is Americans tend to be fiercely independent. Gosh darnit, I want to get to work at 9:00, not 8:52 which I'd have to do if I road the train! People would rather sit in traffic on their own time than ride the train on somebody else's schedule.

People would return to trains if they were regular, cheap, and reliable.

But governments are interested more in investing in roads rather than cheaper, more reliable, and much more efficient rail travel.

This. But since the US has gone so long without investing so much as a dime in light rail, the initial investment is tremendous. It makes more sense to keep up existing road and rail than to build new rail systems from scratch.

People would return to trains if they were regular, cheap, and reliable.

But governments are interested more in investing in roads rather than cheaper, more reliable, and much more efficient rail travel.

This. But since the US has gone so long without investing so much as a dime in light rail, the initial investment is tremendous. It makes more sense to keep up existing road and rail than to build new rail systems from scratch.

You'd be surprised. It costs less per passenger capacity/hour to build a conventional rail line (not even light rail, which is cheaper) than it is to build a highway.

Relevant to a lot of the discussions that happen in P/R: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/fairfax-teacher-sean-lanigan-still-suffering-from-false-molestation-allegations/2011/03/04/AFVwhh3G_story.html

Relevant to a lot of the discussions that happen in P/R: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/fairfax-teacher-sean-lanigan-still-suffering-from-false-molestation-allegations/2011/03/04/AFVwhh3G_story.html

Gotta keep the bonfires burning. That's pretty fucked up. It's also why I can't imagine anybody wanting to be a teacher. Easy for me since I hate kids, but somebody who actually likes them and wants to teach them is putting himself at extraordinary risk. It's just not worth it in this climate.

Besides the fact that people in the US have to drive way more because there's no public transportation.

Not necessarily just because there's no public transportation, but we have a terrible sprawl problem. Our neighborhoods and houses are primarily set up to where you basically are forced to drive if you want to go anywhere. Everyone has to have big driveways, SUVs, and separation.

(http://static.flickr.com/3076/2910702880_a4d1acf345.jpg)

I doubt you really find many neighborhoods like this outside of North America. It's primarily why we consume so much more energy than the rest of the world, I can only assume.

I'm about to head home for a long weekend. I'm glad I live within a 20 minute walk of a train station, that's well connected to the other parts of the city by public transport. Hell, of that 20 minutes, only 10 of it need to be above ground, because the city was planned with a little foresight.

According to my cities local bus trip planner, for me to take a bus from home to work it would take 40 minutes to an hour and 5 minutes depending on the route and if the buses are on schedule. Add in the additional 10-15 minute walk to the closest bus stops and we're looking at waking up at 4am to make it to work at 7am. It takes me 10 minutes to drive there as its only 6 miles...

According to my cities local bus trip planner, for me to take a bus from home to work it would take 40 minutes to an hour and 5 minutes depending on the route and if the buses are on schedule. Add in the additional 10-15